Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 1 Aug 2014 in Securitization questions, CL said:

    Thanks.

    If one bought a slice of an auto ABS that was not based on maturity, but say, credit risk, can it be for longer than the length of the loans within?

  • On 1 Aug 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, CL said:

    thunderlips11 says

    I'm opposed to our current high levels of immigration because it creates a large reserve army of labor that depresses wages. Wages build up, not trickle down, so without upward wage pressure for the unskilled, it's likely that workers will continue to be underpaid and overworked.

    I agree it's a concern, but what do you think about, for example, the idea that there is a tremendous new glut of labor and money from China and India that have come online like never before. (I picked up the "Age of Oversupply" recently. Seems to be a decent book).

    Is it really immigrants that we need to be concerned with? Witness Hazelton: immigrants left town and with them departed a big chunk of their elderly economy.

    Documented and undocumented immigrants to America consume in America. They are often youthful, and pay into Social Security and Medicare, etc. Undocumenteds sell food at food trucks to undocumenteds who work at the construction site. Remove them and you may remove the only economic activity in town!

    And the best thing is, when they are no longer needed, they simply self-deport! :)

  • On 1 Aug 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, CL said:

    thunderlips11 says

    CL says

    . The majority of Catholics support birth control, despite the hierarchy. Latinos are no exception, and support gay marriage as well.

    HUGE differences between Latinos. It's like saying Hungarian Rednecks and Paris Night Club Owners share similar views about Homosexuality.

    Cubans (inc. Cuban-Americans) are generally down with Abortion. "Private Abortion Providers" feature in after page of these 1/8th ads in the local ad rags, about as many as the Divorce Lawyers.

    Mexico City only legalized abortion for the 1st Trimester a few years ago, it remains totally illegal throughout most of Mexico. Gay Rights is also hotly debated and marriage illegal in most of Mexico (where Marriage is entirely Civil after a violent struggle against Superstition).

    Well, don't confuse policy with the people. If that were the case, most Americans feel differently than our leadership on nearly every important issue facing us, whether it be social or NSA privacy issues. Are we all homophobic, immigrant-bashing redneck cowboys?

    The trend in the Latino population is toward liberalism.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/latinos-endorse-legal-abortion/

    Exit polls: "Big majorities of Latinos across the country and other voters agreed that abortion should be legal, including nearly equal shares of men and women, according to exit polling."

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/majority-of-latinos-support-state-recognition-of-gay-marriage/

    "Hispanic voters were more likely than other voters to say they would approve if their state recognized same-sex marriage, according to preliminary exit poll results.

    Nearly six-in-ten Latino voters (59%) said their state should legally recognize same-sex marriage while 32% said their state should not. But among all voters, about half (48%) favored legalization of gay marriage while nearly the same share said they would oppose it (47%).

    Non-Hispanic whites were the most opposed to states legally sanctioning same-sex marriage (47% favored but 50% were opposed). Among blacks, half (52%) would support while 40% opposed state support for gay unions."

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/24/after-decades-of-gop-support-cubans-shifting-toward-the-democratic-party/

    Even Cuban support for the GOP has been utterly destroyed, which I didn't anticipate would happen in my lifetime.

    And Puerto Ricans migrating to Florida is another reason that state has effectively turned blue.

    http://nbclatino.com/2012/11/07/analysis-puerto-ricans-turned-florida-blue/

    http://prospect.org/article/central-floridas-corridor-power

    The GOP had better wake up or the nativists will destroy the last semblance of a viable political party. There is very little room for minorities in the GOP, and it gets smaller every day. Will immigration efforts help or hurt them?

    komputodo says

    OTOH, latinos born in the USA have no interest in legalizing illegal mexicans.

    I disagree here too. Some of these family members, born here, have relatives in Latin America. And they aren't stupid enough to not see the racism directed at them by the party, with their cantaloupe calves and anti-brown measures.

    Explain to a Mexican why Canada doesn't need a wall, despite being the longest unprotected border in the world. Explain to a Mexican why we don't stop Minnesotans on the street and ask them to prove they aren't Canadians.

    They are painfully aware of the scapegoating that is occurring. It might already be too late for the party of Lincoln.

  • On 31 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, CL said:

    sbh says

    They are conservative in other ways as well.

    Some of that is hype, drummed up by the right. The majority of Catholics support birth control, despite the hierarchy. Latinos are no exception, and support gay marriage as well.

    They make the (false) assumption that, Catholicism is conservative, Mexico is a "Catholic" country, therefore Mexican immigrants are naturally conservative. I needn't remind you that a combination of Catholicism and Latin America is also the foundation for liberation theology, which has been deemed "Marxist" by many conservatives.

    It's filled with untruths and logical fallacies.

    So, ultimately, it is simply a thinly veiled attempt to define Latinos for themselves, to give them a framework to eventually vote Republican. It's a racist one at that, because if demographics don't reveal what conservatives WANT them to reveal, then it's back to the brown heap they go. They are no longer useful to the right.

  • On 30 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, CL said:

    FortWayne says

    It doesn't dawn on them that desperate poor they want to bring will always accept a shittier station in life just to have a job, which will reduce wages and benefits for all Americans.

    But those immigrants are also consumers, and the stuff they consume is being sold by Americans in America. Where does money we send abroad go?

    We have a problem in supply v. demand. and it's not on the supply side. Importing consumers is not the same as exporting jobs.

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, CL said:

    mell says

    I cannot speak for every area and sector in the US, but Occam's razor would dictate to be skeptical of claims of pay gaps.

    See? I don't think it does. If I create a new position, and get approval for 50-65K to start what factors do I use to assign value to that employee? Resume, sure. Experience, sure. But Occam's razor would say that the shortest path is likely the most accurate, right?

    So, isn't it a bit more esoteric than that? The candidate "feels" right? "Seems like a great fit"? "Has the right attitude?".

    Consciously or not, humans grant deference to certain people, except through mental effort. It's the same reason that white male Christians disproportionately hold the levers of power, in the Congress and all elected offices, as well as Executive positions on corporations.

    If there is a disturbance, and there are 2 middle age white men and 2 black youths, who will get investigated first? Is justice blind? If not, what is different about a hiring scenario?

    Whether it be by 5k or 15K, the women will, over time, get the short end of the stick. I've seen married males get bumps in salary, and single males get none or less. Unless the salaries are publicly available, there is little way to know until a grievance is filed, ala Ledbetter. Or via surveys, but a skeptic will write those off.

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, CL said:

    From Wikipedia,

    "The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece.[6] Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called PalaistinĂª" in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Approximately a century later, Aristotle used a similar definition in Meteorology, writing "Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them," understood by scholars to be a reference to the Dead Sea.[13] Later writers such as Polemon and Pausanias also used the term to refer to the same region."

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in What would happen if there were no political parties?, CL said:

    indigenous says

    Identifying yourself with a political party is a fools errand. The only thing that matters are the issues.

    Well, no. People will associate for a variety of reasons: some are tactical and some are birds of a feather. Union members might not be feminists, and ethnic minorities might dislike each other, but they have a home in the Democratic party. They do NOT have a home in the GOP.

    We know that out of expedience (and other factors) a party will shift or rapidly change. The GOP would like to shift to being welcoming to non-whites, but runs the risk of alienating the racist wing of the party. When either:
    *It becomes more advantageous to drop the racists and pick up minorities;
    *or the minorities stop recoiling and become open to voting GOP
    you will see the party shift constituencies.

    In America, if you intend to effect change, you can almost certainly only do so through the 2-party apparatus. As pointless as that sounds, you can do it by pushing rightward or leftward in the primaries. You can vote for a 3rd party, if only to punish your ideological peers for not being as "pure" as you are. You can support the candidate in your party that most closely resembles your beliefs. The real winner in the primaries will absorb your candidate's position to steal his/her votes. Or they won't. Odds are if they don't, you and your friends are about the only people who believe what you believe anyway, or else that electoral gold would have been mined.

    So, I say, identify with a party, but be on the lookout for the shifts. To know if you care about the shifts, you have to know what it is you believe in the first place.

    And THAT is the point of the thread. Voters don't know what they believe until someone tells them what to think. Preferably, a teevee man. Or a whole team of men in blond wigs. I'm looking at you, Fox!

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in What would happen if there were no political parties?, CL said:

    Dan8267 says

    No, I think he'd find groups to hate: blacks, gays, intellectuals, liberals, people who can read or tie their shoes...

    Today's Democratic party, if you add labor. "People who can read or tie their shoes" are those academics the right always complains about-- the ones poisoning our youth with ideas about the world being round, and Columbus' penchant for rape and murder. Is nothing sacred??? :)

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, CL said:

    mell says

    I have worked in tech management and (over)seen salaries, and there simply was no pay gap

    A quick google search shows headlines that say "Wage gap in technology exceedingly small", especially in San Franciscco.

    mell says

    I have never observed a pay gap there either, nor did the women I know in these fields report one.

    Were the salaries public knowledge?

    mell says

    Occam's razor would dictate then that it is highly unlikely.

    Not necessarily. If you get a salary range approved, you can award the high end based on your notion, or the low-end based on the same. Women can get the low-end, and will likely accept it if they encounter discrimination at every prospective employer.

    I've seen deliberations in my past, and seen firsthand concerns for people (men) who have children, families, etc. They "need" it more, the logic goes. Haven't you?

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, CL said:

    mell says

    Instead, forget about left and right and look at the data within the same profession(s). There is NO pay gap.

    That's the thing. The Rightwing will say there is no pay gap. Then they say, "if there is a pay gap, it's because women have children". Then they say, "if there is a pay gap, even among women without children, it's because they choose lower paid professions".

    They use the "all of the above" argument with Climate change too. It's intellectually dishonest.

    http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/04/07/women-earn-less-than-men-even-in-woman-dominated-jobs/

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, CL said:

    FortWayne says

    I have never seen a man do well as a waiter at Hooters. Was that too sexist?

    I would wager you've never seen a male waiter at Hooters. In any case, all you illustrated was that a workplace dependent on the objectification of WOMEN will, in fact, objectify women. I've never seen a female Chippendale, either, although I'll admit I haven't looked for either anomaly.

    But, if the rightwing argument is that women simply choose low paying professions, then with the disparity even in "their house"? Hmmm?

    Do you not believe that people in power, whether here in white, male Christiandom, or in the top castes in India, etc. don't intend to maintain their privilege, directly or indirectly? That there is no hiring bias?

    Imagine a world where Black Jewish Gay people dominated the country's power structure. Fortwayne gets paid less. He must have not negotiated properly, I reckon.

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, CL said:

    turtledove says

    It would be easier if we could say that all bigots can be found under a particular affiliation

    The one thing I tire of is the notion of "a pox on both your houses". This is a subtle rhetorical trick that people do when faced with the reality that the party or ideology they have adhered to is flawed.

    Fascism is a rightwing ideology. Nazis, no matter what conservatives say, is a conservative ideology. Mein Kampf explicitly condemned liberals, and fascism explicitly is anti-communist, anti-egalitarian, pro-business and jingoistic.

    Communists, Catholics and others have historically aligned to fight AGAINST racism, sexism and other injustices. They protest together. They fought side-by-side for civil rights in the 60s. It is better to be born black in Cuba than in most of America. Blacks have a higher literacy rate in Cuba than in the US. These philosophies were also condemned by the fascists and Nazis.

    Are these commonalities a coincidence?

    There are douches on both sides, no question. But I think the temptation is to say "everyone does it!", which has the same effect "we report, you decide" does. Equivocation is insidious and prevents us from seeing clearly, and acting accordingly.

  • On 29 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, CL said:

    Peter P says

    A lot of the perceived gaps come from comparisons across occupational/functional groups.

    I've seen the opposite proven. That is, men in women-dominated fields still receive more for the same job.

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, CL said:

    Dan8267 says

    The grandchildren of the vocal conservatives of today will pretend that their grandparents were liberals who supported minority rights including gay marriage

    Hahah. But of course. And if ACA works, it will be BECAUSE it is a conservative idea! You've unlocked the mystery---they are always on the right side, after having been on the wrong side in the history books.

    Because, you see, history books are written by lefty pinheads who promote homosexuality.

    And if the economy is bad under a Republican, it is due to the Democrat before him. If the Democrat is from a generation ago---no problem, he is to blame anyway!

    If a Democrat has a lousy economy, it is entirely his fault, even if it is terrible on inauguration day. Because, ya know, the markets were reacting to a Democratic victory in ADVANCE of the election! Maybe even YEARS before the election!

    ***Ultimately, it was the ending of redlining that caused this mess, because you should be allowed to fuck over black people! It's in the Constitution! Liberty!****

    And remember, it was REPUBLICANS who supported Civil Rights, and freed the slaves. Which also was NOT necessary (because they would have been freed anyway because of capitalism or something). And Had it not been for the tyranny of Abraham Lincoln, who didn't really care about black rights, then the obviously good outcome would have been even better if conservatives had ruled entirely! And Lincoln was not a Liberal, but Hoover was.

    So, you know, the gays.

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, CL said:

    Dan8267 says

    Even when it comes to "gun rights", they believe that certain people shouldn't have guns, namely scary blacks, but that they should have this privilege and it should be unassailable.

    That's why I like to post this.

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in Violent Crime Rises And Falls With Black Population, CL said:

    The Original Bankster says

    Margeret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was an outspoken Eugenicist

    And the Republican Party were early supporters of Planned Parenthood. Maybe they were only in it for the eugenics?

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in What is up with the rash of trashy posts lately?, CL said:

    turtledove says

    Unfortunately, it doesn't seem limited to political affiliation. Two rabid sexists from this site, who shall remain nameless, couldn't be more opposite on the political spectrum. If likes are any indication, I got more support from our right leaning individuals in defense of women. I don't think hate cares which box you tick off on your voter registration.

    Except, yeah. The liberals don't care that white people exist; they might even be one. They don't care that gun owners exist; they might even own one. They don't care that people believe in religion; they might even have one.

    No, the liberals believe, as the founders did, that rights granted to some are to be granted to everyone. That justice is only justice if it is applied evenly and without prejudice.

    The right has a strong propensity to believe, "If it ain't white, Christian, and straight, it should not exist".

    They tend to support the power of the majority over the minority. They are the modern Pharisees and Sadducees. They disregard the downtrodden in favor of them what's got.

    So, I don't buy the premise. The liberals I know, and the liberals here, will fight for every rightwinger's right to believe what he or she chooses, but not their ability or inclinations to make everyone else adhere to it.

    Can you really say the same about the right?

  • On 28 Jul 2014 in Oakland Crime Shows City Losing in California Rebound, CL said:

    Carolyn C says

    So haw many time have you been shot at while visiting friends and relative in Oakland?

    Barely ever! And since I'm not a kid, I survived!

    That's quite a low bar, even though I love Oak-town. I've lived there for a very long time and no matter where I've lived there have been shots fired.

    Of course, I witnessed a murder in Indiana, and we were shot past in Chicago. I barely ever witness murders in Oakland.

  • On 27 Jul 2014 in Rotten to the core?, CL said:

    There are plenty of situations where I'd notice any traffic on my wifi.

    I might expect there to be no traffic.

    I might even log the sites the devices are routing to.

  • On 27 Jul 2014 in Rotten to the core?, CL said:

    What's the issue with Chromecast?

    Also, if the bug in iOS really transmits data, wouldn't it count against subscribers' data allocations? Wouldn't the engineers on company wifi networks see the traffic?

  • On 27 Jul 2014 in Oakland is number one!, CL said:

    lostand confused says

    Wasn't jerry brown the mayor of Oakland, before he became the Governor of CA.

    We refer to that period as "the Golden Years".

  • On 25 Jul 2014 in In a Subprime Bubble for Used Cars, Borrowers Pay Sky-High Rates - NYTimes.com, CL said:

    zzyzzx says

    Just emailed article to some of my ex co-workers who still work in Wells Fargo sub prime auto loan division.

    I'd be very curious about their take, if you can provide it.

    Pwedictions?!?!! (In my best, Johnny Mac voice)

    What do you think will likely occur here? Investors stop investing once it's no longer attractive? Then what?

  • On 21 Jul 2014 in So, where is Peggy Joseph's Obama Love now?? Is he paying her Mortgage?, CL said:

    Call it Crazy says

    CL says

    Obama is a lying sack of shit because:

    1) He promised to pay her mortgage?

    2) He didn't?

    I don't recall that promise. Can someone provide a link?

    Apparently, you didn't watch the first video either... Watch it, she'll tell you...

    I watched it, but it added nothing to the discussion. My assessment remains the most valid of rightwing delusion. If Obama were to "give" her what she thought he would, he would have been wrong. If he fails to do what she thought, he is also wrong. Where are your (and the right's) principles, on anything?

  • On 18 Jul 2014 in So, where is Peggy Joseph's Obama Love now?? Is he paying her Mortgage?, CL said:

    komputodo says

    iwog says

    You're too stupid to realize what this really means. If liberals are upset at Obama, doesn't that mean he's far more conservative than you lying idiots have claimed?

    Why does everyone have to fall into your 2 categories? Can't someone just be a lying sack of shit in your world?

    Obama is a lying sack of shit because:

    1) He promised to pay her mortgage?
    2) He didn't?

    I don't recall that promise. Can someone provide a link?

    In any case,

    When this story came out, it was OBVIOUSLY an indictment of this woman, and "coloreds" in general, since we ALL know they want free stuff from the Nigerian President, who was more than eager to deliver on those freebies.

    Now that she did not receive those freebies that he did not promise, conservatives can point to the disappointment they must feel in NOT getting things he DID NOT promise.

    That doesn't make sense to you? Obama is a charlatan who promised to reward her, which would be wrong. When he didn't, he is wrong. Because conservatives don't have a real ideology anymore, unless you count "whatever Obama does is wrong", even if it's exactly what we want!

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 214 milliseconds to create.