@Guest4000 Not from a guy who's whole "expertise" is getting money from banks to make sure they are compliant with this bullshit regulation. Gee, what did you think he'd say? The CRA was a "bad idea" in retrospect? Oh well, I guess I'll go back to ambulance chasing?
@dalmatian847 "Yeah no doubt a fair and impartial observer."
Yeah, those lousy experts who cite their sources for specific data are just so biased! And you just know all the sources for their citations are in on the scheme too! On top of that, lawyers are the only people who ever lie and have an agenda; everyone knows that! The smartest thing to do is to just dismiss it all without examining the numbers - pesky little things....
@dalmatian847 "or if you bothered reading the disclaimer at the bottom"
Ha... what? You do realize that stating that something isn't "legal advice" is a standard disclaimer used in non-client communication, right? That you would be so desperate as to try to use that as a way to discredit the study (which contains ample citations) is cute.
@Guest4000 Did I pull this out of my ass? Warren W. Traiger is Counsel in the New York, NY office of BuckleySandler LLP. Mr. Traiger counsels clients on consumer regulatory matters, particularly fair lending and Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) compliance.
Yeah no doubt a fair and impartial observer. I'd believe everything he says because lawyers would never lie about anything , would they? Especially when it comes to their very livlihood.
@Guest4000 Next time, try not using an "in-depth" report from a major Democrat political donor whose main source of business evidently was making sure banks were Community Reinvestment Act compliant.
No conflict of interest there, is there? No , of course not.
You evidently didn't do your homework and expected me not to either. Sorry to disappoint you.
Nor should it be intended as proof of anything else for that matter. One of the first premises on the study is disputed by Austen Goolsbee of all people.
@dalmatian847 Actually, It appears that it would be you who are pulling "facts" out of your ass. I pulled my facts out of this in-depth report: traigerlaw. com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
Try not arguing with someone who knows what they're talking about next time. :-)
@Guest4000 Yeah, Haliburton's an expert on what's going on in Iraq too, but somehow I don't think you'd take their word for it either, now would you?
dalmatian847 1 year ago
@Guest4000 Not from a guy who's whole "expertise" is getting money from banks to make sure they are compliant with this bullshit regulation. Gee, what did you think he'd say? The CRA was a "bad idea" in retrospect? Oh well, I guess I'll go back to ambulance chasing?
dalmatian847 1 year ago
@dalmatian847 "Yeah no doubt a fair and impartial observer."
Yeah, those lousy experts who cite their sources for specific data are just so biased! And you just know all the sources for their citations are in on the scheme too! On top of that, lawyers are the only people who ever lie and have an agenda; everyone knows that! The smartest thing to do is to just dismiss it all without examining the numbers - pesky little things....
Guest4000 1 year ago
@dalmatian847 "or if you bothered reading the disclaimer at the bottom"
Ha... what? You do realize that stating that something isn't "legal advice" is a standard disclaimer used in non-client communication, right? That you would be so desperate as to try to use that as a way to discredit the study (which contains ample citations) is cute.
Guest4000 1 year ago
@Guest4000 Did I pull this out of my ass? Warren W. Traiger is Counsel in the New York, NY office of BuckleySandler LLP. Mr. Traiger counsels clients on consumer regulatory matters, particularly fair lending and Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) compliance.
Yeah no doubt a fair and impartial observer. I'd believe everything he says because lawyers would never lie about anything , would they? Especially when it comes to their very livlihood.
dalmatian847 1 year ago
@Guest4000 Next time, try not using an "in-depth" report from a major Democrat political donor whose main source of business evidently was making sure banks were Community Reinvestment Act compliant.
No conflict of interest there, is there? No , of course not.
You evidently didn't do your homework and expected me not to either. Sorry to disappoint you.
dalmatian847 1 year ago
@Guest4000 You'd be a lot more credible if you didn't use the same "in-depth" report used by every other liberal troll as "proof positive", or if you bothered reading the disclaimer at the bottom of the 1st page "© 2008 Traiger & Hinckley LLP This study is not intended to provide and should not be relied on as a source of legal advice.
Nor should it be intended as proof of anything else for that matter. One of the first premises on the study is disputed by Austen Goolsbee of all people.
dalmatian847 1 year ago
@dalmatian847 Actually, It appears that it would be you who are pulling "facts" out of your ass. I pulled my facts out of this in-depth report: traigerlaw. com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
Try not arguing with someone who knows what they're talking about next time. :-)
Guest4000 1 year ago
@Guest4000 The majority of the subprime loans made possible by th CRA were the ones that defaulted, causing a global financial meltdown.
Try not pulling your facts out of your ass next time.
dalmatian847 1 year ago
@sailinship
Yep, it's called projection and transference.
TrollBuster9090 1 year ago