more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 23 Apr 2010 20:18 On Apr 23, 6:36 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Apr 23, 9:02 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > On Apr 23, 6:40 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > Extending health insurance to an extra thirty million people isn't > > > going to make health care more available and affordable for them? > > > Obama doesn't 'extend' health insurance to anyone. He simply requires > > they buy over-priced insurance that covers more things than they could > > possibly need. If they won't, they go to jail. > > You would think that. If you could find a less biased source to > valdidate that particular point of view, it might be worth thinking > about. My source is HR 3590, the bill itself. I find the horse itself to be the best source for such manure, don't you? > > Obamacare includes a bunch of limitations on competing outfits that > > his followers wanted punished, like physician-owned hospitals. > > Various carve-outs based on race / 'diversity'. And, he offers > > handouts to half of America, to buy their votes with their own money. > > > You know--robbing Peter to pay Peter. > > I know what you want to believe. I do not think that you would let > mere facts change your opinion. You could try and cite some ostensibly > un-biased source - a slightly less right-wing newspaper than the UK > Daily Mail would have rather more credibility - but you are unlikely > to bother. Maybe you can get someone to read it to you and explain it. I'm not so inclined. James Arthur
From: JosephKK on 23 Apr 2010 23:21 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:59:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Apr 23, 5:23 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >wrote: >> John Larkin wrote: >> > This *will* cause insurance rates to zoom up, which is why the >> > insurance companies didn't mind it much. After they zoom, the Dems >> > will blame the insurance companies for "greed" and knife them in the >> > back. It's a designed-to-fail strategy. >> >> At least you can say that they have learned something from Wall Street. >> If it is good enough for Goldman Sachs then it has to be OK? >> >> http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/sec.goldman.fortune/in... > >I'm mixed on whether Goldman was dirty on this one. They, after all, >invested in the thing themselves, and lost $90M on it. That doesn't >sound like they thought it was doomed. If anything, it sounds like >they didn't get their money's worth from Paulson, whom they paid $15M >to choose the holdings. > >> The ultimate in designed to fail strategies that always pay the banker. > >Wrong. The banker, Goldman Sachs, lost. > >Interestingly, Goldman's CEO has been having lots of chats with Obama-- >multiple visits to the White House. > >It all looks like a play to pass Obama's latest takeover, with its >brain-dead built-in bailout fund. That's guaranteed stupid--it saves >companies it shouldn't, gives the Executive dictatorial powers over >private companies, and invites corruption, as private companies will >exist only at the whim of the Executive. > >It's embarrassing. > > >James Arthur Maybe we can compare notes, a friend mailed this to me: Goldman vs. SEC Porter Stansberry, 4-19-2010 On 02-24-2010, We wrote that: Goldman eventually admitted it had insured roughly $20 billion worth of subprime CDOs with AIG and had major exposure to the firm. But the New York Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs never revealed this critical fact: Goldman didn't merely buy insurance on a bunch of random subprime CDOs. It actually bought insurance on special CDOs it had put together and sold to its own clients. In other words, Goldman knew more about these CDOs than anyone else. Goldman bought insurance on these CDOs because it knew they'd collapse. This is tantamount to building a house, planting a bomb in it, selling it to an unsuspecting buyer, and buying $20 billion worth of life insurance on the homeowner ? who you know is going to die! These facts all came to light because of research done by the office of Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. These new documents will certainly lead to a full investigation of the Goldman-AIG dealings and the subsequent $180 billion bailout led by the New York Federal Reserve. My bet? Heads will roll. If you own Goldman Sachs, you'd better sell. ? Porter Stansberry Last week, the SEC targeted Goldman Sachs in a civil fraud case. The lawsuit alleges Goldman sold investors a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) linked to the performance of certain mortgages without disclosing John Paulson's hedge fund, Paulson & Co, helped design the product and was betting against those mortgages. Paolo Pellegrini, Paulson's lead mortgage analyst, worked with Goldman to pick a group of mortgages most likely to be downgraded. Paulson & Co then paid Goldman $15 million for the service. ACA Financial, a bond insurance company, made a few changes to the structure of the product. Then Goldman sold these to its clients, who readily bought because of their triple-A rating. John Paulson made $1 billion from his bets against this particular mortgage product, named Abacus. The buyers, which included ACA Financial and the German bank IKB, lost $1 billion.
From: JosephKK on 23 Apr 2010 23:30 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:18:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Apr 23, 6:36 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> On Apr 23, 9:02 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> > On Apr 23, 6:40 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> > > Extending health insurance to an extra thirty million people isn't >> > > going to make health care more available and affordable for them? >> >> > Obama doesn't 'extend' health insurance to anyone. He simply requires >> > they buy over-priced insurance that covers more things than they could >> > possibly need. If they won't, they go to jail. >> >> You would think that. If you could find a less biased source to >> valdidate that particular point of view, it might be worth thinking >> about. > >My source is HR 3590, the bill itself. I find the horse itself to be >the best source for such manure, don't you? > > >> > Obamacare includes a bunch of limitations on competing outfits that >> > his followers wanted punished, like physician-owned hospitals. >> > Various carve-outs based on race / 'diversity'. And, he offers >> > handouts to half of America, to buy their votes with their own money. >> >> > You know--robbing Peter to pay Peter. >> >> I know what you want to believe. I do not think that you would let >> mere facts change your opinion. You could try and cite some ostensibly >> un-biased source - a slightly less right-wing newspaper than the UK >> Daily Mail would have rather more credibility - but you are unlikely >> to bother. > >Maybe you can get someone to read it to you and explain it. I'm not >so inclined. > >James Arthur Take away more of his excuses, post a link for him and email him a copy of the result from the link.
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Apr 2010 06:02 On Apr 24, 2:18 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 23, 6:36 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Apr 23, 9:02 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Apr 23, 6:40 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > Extending health insurance to an extra thirty million people isn't > > > > going to make health care more available and affordable for them? > > > > Obama doesn't 'extend' health insurance to anyone. He simply requires > > > they buy over-priced insurance that covers more things than they could > > > possibly need. If they won't, they go to jail. > > > You would think that. If you could find a less biased source to > > valdidate that particular point of view, it might be worth thinking > > about. > > My source is HR 3590, the bill itself. I find the horse itself to be > the best source for such manure, don't you? A bill which, as you have been at pains to explain to us, involves some 1000 pages of intricate horse-trading. It would seem to be complicated enough that you will be able to read it any way you like - and we already know the way you will want to interpret every apparent internal conflict. Your reading is a litle too obviously partisan to be remotely useful. Find a source that might be condisdered objective, or shut up. > > > Obamacare includes a bunch of limitations on competing outfits that > > > his followers wanted punished, like physician-owned hospitals. > > > Various carve-outs based on race / 'diversity'. And, he offers > > > handouts to half of America, to buy their votes with their own money. > > > > You know--robbing Peter to pay Peter. > > > I know what you want to believe. I do not think that you would let > > mere facts change your opinion. You could try and cite some ostensibly > > un-biased source - a slightly less right-wing newspaper than the UK > > Daily Mail would have rather more credibility - but you are unlikely > > to bother. > > Maybe you can get someone to read it to you and explain it. I'm not > so inclined. You've been explaining your reading of the bill for quite some time now. There an obvious anti-Obama bias in your point of view, which makes your observations utterly predictable. They tell us more than we need to know about your intellectual integrity - non-existent - and absolutey nothing about the bill beyond the obvious fact that you loathe it. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Apr 2010 14:02
On Apr 24, 6:37 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:36:07 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Apr 23, 6:49 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 06:45:26 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Apr 23, 2:44 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:45:06 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >On Apr 21, 6:02 pm, John Larkin > >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Truth is my business. I'm fairly good at it. > > >> >> >Where your busniess is concerned you may have some regard for truth - > >> >> >if you made a claim on which you couldn't deliver, your customers > >> >> >would have means and motive to derail your little red waggon. > > >> >> --- > >> >> "If?" > > >> >> Your petty little world seems to revolve around 'ifs' which you try to > >> >> promote as real but which are nothing more than idle conjectures which > >> >> you try to support by latching on to others' coattails. > > >> >And your argument hinges on interpreting an entirely hypothetical "if" > >> >introduced to clarify an argument, as if it had something to do with the > >> >real world. Grow up. > > --- > Liar. > > While Larkin's point was that he searches for truth, you pretend that > the "if" was inserted to clarify an argument when, in fact, it was used > in a derogatory way to infer that Larkin had better mind his P's and Q's > with respect to the truth of claims he makes to his customers. There's nothing derogatory about that point - we all have to mind our P's and Q's with respect to the truth of claims that we make to our customers. Since John Larkin regularly posts nonsense when he isn't posting about stuff that he sells, his somewhat gnomic claim that "truth is his business" (which doesn't imply that he "searches for truth", as you claim) did need to be qualified. You have got it into your head that my formulation is derogatory, but you do have a tendency to read non-existent meanings into the text that you read, and a history of posting huge volumes of irrelevant verbiage about what you've imagined has been said. > A sidestep on your part in an attempt to avoid the truth. What "truth"? <snip> > >All irrelevant. John wants to translate his credibility in areas that > >he does know something about into credibiity in areas that he clearly > >knows very little about. You are silly enough to fall for the implicit > >argument, and dim enough to think that repeating it anything but a > >waste of bandwidth. > > --- > Nonsense, _and_ PKB, since you fault Larkin for translating his > credibility from areas where he's clearly competent, like electronic > design, to areas where you claim he isn't, and in the same breath try to > translate your credibility in areas you know something about, like > blowing smoke and peddling snake oil, into areas you obviously know very > little about, like electronics design. Since you know remarkably little about post-555 electronic design, and absolutely nothing about about designing fast (as in needing to treat the tracks as transmission lines) or precise electronics, your opinion about my competence in electronic design is just bluster, and merely reflects your capacity for self-delusion. <snipped the rest> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |