[QbCp7LaZ]

It's not a "small error" when you allege that an administration has gotten literally zero convictions while asserting previous administrations have gotten thousands. It's a very large error. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you presented none until I called you on it.

Thing is, if you had just said Obama isn't tough enough on wall street, I fully agree, and you will note I did not dispute anything in the Daily Beast article.

But instead you invented some statistic (or incorrectly pulled it from an previously-uncited report, apparently), that just isn't gonna fly.

Ever heard of a distinction without a difference?

The administrations record is apocryphal which is made all the worse by Obamas self-righteous ‘gloating’ about being tougher on wall street than their opponents have been or would be.

I admitted I mistakenly used the zero figure that applied to major institutions. OK, under this administration they have 10, maybe 20 convictions total? None of them have been major financial players …. I know such a "large" mistake on my part!

You trolling me?

[constanyiskancho]

Ever heard of a distinction without a difference?

The administrations record is apocryphal which is made all the worse by Obamas self-righteous ‘gloating’ about being tougher on wall street than their opponents have been or would be.

I admitted I mistakenly used the zero figure that applied to major institutions. OK, under this administration they have 10, maybe 20 convictions total? None of them have been major financial players …. I know such a "large" mistake on my part!

Non-zero is, well, not zero. That is both a difference and a distinction to me.

We do not have a comprehensive list of convictions from 2009-2012. We both found ~20 in just a few minutes of internet searching, I would guess there are more that don't make the news. Furthermore, the number is being compared with "1,000+" and "1,300+" which are not backed up. The whole point of your post was to contrast Obama's record with Bush and Clinton, but it's not clear at all if apples are being compared to apples or kumquats. The Daily Beast article uses pretty vague figures.. "20 year-low" and "down 39%" but no real context is given for those figures and there obviously is a dispute about how to count the convictions given the parenthetical comment.

Going from "zero convictions" to "zero convictions of (an undefined) 'major financial players'" is a big change in what you're saying, especially since you did not revise the Clinton/Bush figures that are presented for comparison. It also assumes that there are major financial players that are guilty of, and can be convicted of, crimes. That is not clear at all, MF Global being an example of that (note there is a key distinction, and difference, between criminal and civil sanctions.. MF Global, and very likely Corzine, will not escape civil penalties by any means).

All that said, as I stated above, I share the opinion that Obama has not lived up to his rhetoric on the issue. But faulty arguments that arrive at the correct (imo) conclusion are still faulty.

[UnduttRit]

and justice american style continues

Woman Who Couldn’t Be Intimidated by Citigroup Wins $31 Million

[AcecePesFeacy]