Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsluggo
No, we aren't talking about acorn here. The author of the article did talk about acorn... but they did it like a magician for an audience of 5-year-olds, hoping that the feeble minded would jump at the big shiny globe in the left hand and ignore what was happening in the rest of the room. Unfortunately that strategy always appears to work.
the ARTICLE stated that the amendment called for the installment of a new advisory board with some members drawn from consumer groups. It doesn't specify who would fill this role. The author then states that since Acorn is a consumer group, this amendment is calling for <<fill in your follow up posts of "this is ACORN we are talking about, gawldarnit!!!" here>>>
they are talking about setting up an advisory board focused on consumer protection as an aspect of the overall fiancial oversight apparatus. you can have an opinion, one way or another on whether this idea has merit or not. But, s others have pointed out ALL MEMBERS of these advisory boards are stakeholders in one way or another... and this is a fact that is so obvious that it goes without saying. ****pst... there will also be high payed wall street financial barons, and mortgage brokers, and and and rich people on this board!!!!! the horrors!!! ***** But, overall, to fall for the moronic baiting acorn schlep because the board focused on consumer protection might have the audacity to have consumer groups on this board is, well, simpleminded.
|
Hats off to McSluggo. The above is the first logical, well thought out rebuttal to anything I have posted. I re-read the article and McSluggo is correct. The article implies that the amendment to the bill is about ACORN, when that is not really borne out to closer investigation.
I will (and always have) admit when/where I am wrong.
It may be that Mavdog was trying to say the same thing, but she was unable to capture meaning/language adequately to portray the message that McSluggo effectively communicated. So, Mavdog, if you meant the same thing, then I apologize to you as well.
Still, I would love for McSluggo or any other to discuss the issue of "zero liability voters" and the state of the economy and government spending plans/policies. In other words, any frank and well written discussion regarding the current state of our nation and the underlying philosophical points of economics would be most welcome.
So... stick around and talk to me McSluggo. As to catharsis with many scattered points, the majority center around the central theme of economics.
I do enjoy a good discussion (enjoyment in catharsis) and so far McSluggo fits that bill. Would that the others could match you and "talk" to me...