jog49
17 hours ago
"just when you think somebody knows sumthin, nutin honey, including and especially KTCarneyCanival Crowd who taints everything so u can only see that perspective in the fog, all BS facts out of context that dont mean a damn thing. (they are getting smaller and smaller as they dumped preferreds) so goes the GES extended saga."
As the old saying goes "don't nobody know squat!" And with nobody knowing squat, no squat is going to happen. We remain in limbo for the foreseeable future. Fannie, Freddie and the Invisible Man have much in common.
DaJester
24 hours ago
I keep saying I'm not going to repeat myself, but since you keep repeating yourself, I suppose I have no choice.
"The only evidence we have is that Treasury thinks it is illegal. Why would you expect Treasury to do something they think is illegal?"
TREASURY does not "think" anything - FFS. There are over 100K employees there. You can keep talking about "they" as if it's a single person. Unless you know about secret surgeries Mnuchin may have had, you are falsely attributing a stance to the entire US Treasury.
1.) Non-sequitur: an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. Your premise is that since Calabria quoted a conversation with Mnuchin, therefore the writedown is illegal. You can try to reframe it now, but in the past you have said if "Treasury thinks it's illegal" that is evidence that it is, and DOJ would be giving guidance to Treasury, therefore the position is more valid than my position, which is that it is NOT illegal. Go ahead and try to deny it or change your stance.
2.) False-attribution: Appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, fabricated or unidentified source in support of an argument, or when a quote is attributed to the wrong person or group. You consistently attribute the quote as if it applies to "Treasury" when Treasury has said no such thing. If you are going to use the quote, be specific with who said it. Do not imply an official department stance nor infer the opinion of 100K employees. Go ahead and refute this: Treasury has NEVER said the SPS writedown is illegal.
3.) Argument from Authority: The argument is based on the idea that if an authority figure in a field makes a statement about that field, it's probably true. However, this can be a logical fallacy and lead to unreliable conclusions if the authority figure is not qualified or the claim is made in a way that's misleading. First, Calabria is not an authority on the legality of the SPS write-down, he is simply recalling a conversation. Second, whomever he spoke with at Treasury may or may not be an authority on the legality of the SPS write-down. Calabria being the former director of the FHFA does not provide any relevant authority for your argument. Go ahead and refute this: The quote in Calabria's book did not come with any legal references that would support the illegality claim.
"Three strikes and you're out. Clearly giving you the list of logical fallacies wasn't enough because you don't seem to understand what any of them actually mean."
Ummm. You may want to read this post again, slowly. Maybe you need to use a lifeline - poll the audience, and see if they are following your understanding of the fallacies or mine.