FYP

lol...the 3rd meaning includes date and you jump on it, from Dictionary.com no less. The final authority.

Oh, lol, "date" is not even included in the meaning at all; it only appears in the example, like "use this word in a sentence", an indefinite date in the future. In fact, it was italicized at Dictionary.com...lol...you're funny.

Try Merriam-Webter: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indefinite

"Date" doesn't appear at all. Vague - indeterminate - uncertain - indistinct are all synonyms and there is nothing "vague - indeterminate - uncertain - indistinct" about "until the end of hostilities".

You seem to be getting hostile over a simple online debate. Methinks you should probably be detained "until the end of your hostilities", which is not an "indefinite" amount of time. DUCY?

That's exactly what indefinite means. "I'm going to take a dump for 5 minutes" is a definite amount of time. "I'm going to watch you take a dump on the English language until you stop posting about this" is an indefinite amount of time.

Sometime in the future would be indefinite. Until or when would not be indefinite.

Merriam-Webster:

I won't respond further, until I sleep, which is a definite period of time.

By that "logic", "detained until dead or released" would not be indefinite detention. It's hard to show more clearly how wrong you are.

klinkerrrrrrrrrrrrr

QED MOTHER****ERRRRR!!!

Klinker, I'm gonna be honest with you and say I also did not read the entire mix of off-brand right wing blogs you excerpted here. Sorry!

But if you think Greenwald is a dishonest hack, you might want to lead with like actual evidence you have of that? Instead of like your rambling and dishonest attempt to smear Tyner, or that time Greenwald quoted a guy who was exaggerating, or whatever the **** you're trying to do with these "myths" about the NDAA. Prove that you don't know what "indefinite" means?

Be more focused, set out a conclusion, prove that conclusion.

Lol at not getting the definition of indefinite and then double lol at stubbornly refusing to understand and trying to defend a failed definition.

Maybe indefinite means definite like inflammable means flammable.

Klinker, "until hostilities end" is the literal and pragmatic definition of "indefinite".

Yep. The concept of Greenwald not losing his **** is also bizarre, as his writing is pretty much nothing but.

I find Greenwald hugely important and agree with a ton of his stuff. But I stopped reading him regularly because a) much like the Onion, given the headline you can pretty much guess what he's going to say, and b) I find his tone grating as ****. I suspect it's a lot like Krugman - he adopts that tone because he thinks it's the best way to highlight these issues he feels are of central importance. He's probably even right about that approach being best. I vastly prefer the tone of something like Lessig's response, but I can acknowledge that that's not really how the game is played.

This was apparent. One of the blogs was called ExtremeLiberal, def a rightwing blog. Three others were from clearly left-wing sites. Only the last one, the one I explicitly said I did not read and included as a "bonus" was from a right-wing site.

Frankly, I'm disappointed in your lack of curiosity. Just strange how you will spend the time to read tons of stuff on LewRockwell, Mises, etc to attack people, but will not read one article about GG's dishonesty. That's just bizarre.

Funny that you claim that, according to you, I've made a dishonest attempt to smear Tyner. I simply posted facts about Tyner, and that he posts on LewRockwell, which is the very site you often read and use to attack others. Tyner is also associated with Birchers. Off topic, but Kochs father was a founding member of the John Birch Society.

One more link GG huGGers won't read (from one of those left-wing/right-wing sites): The NDAA is Not a “Detention Bill”: Why Language Matters

Glennbots Unite!

Yawn, you did not do so hot on the issue of indefinite itt. The veto thing is lol too.

So today I learned that Klinker thinks some guy going to jail for insider trading is proof that the Obama DOJ is as tough on Wall Street fraud as ever following the 2008 collapse. I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

It's certainly not proof of this, is it?

Which is what Glenn wrote in his first paragraph. In fact, there has been the biggest criminal prosecution in Wall Street's history.

And tell me how you are going to prove criminal fraud on Wall Street, with no wiretaps? Raj was wiretapped. How are you going to travel back in time to 2003-2008 and wiretap people?

At least you read a little bit though. Credit for that. You may be the first.

You see guys, Obama really wants to nab these Wall Street crooks, he just doesn't have the proof! The SEC made out really well by getting Mozilo to settle for like 1/10 of his net worth, because they were gonna get smoked in open court if they actually tried to prosecute him.

I have to give Klinker a lot of credit, it's really not often that an average "liberal" (lol Scott Brown) tries to interact with the internet beyond dropping some dollars on Obama's homepage.

So sorry that your heroes suck, Klinks. I'm pretty sure they will do so indefinitely. That means interminably, yes?

This thread makes me sad for humanity.

Klinker, if **** like that Balloon Juice entry by ABL is the best you've got, yeah, I'm thinking you're just angry that GG says the mean stuff about Obama. That's just defending the utterly idiotic list of "myths" that you already posted. I mean, we all had a good laugh at the "indefinite" definition entry, but otherwise meh. FOCUS YOUR CRITICISMS. Provide actual evidence of actual dishonesty BY GREENWALD. Like 2 of your three top issues with GG here involved a guy he was quoting slightly exaggerating(there have been a handful of Wall Street execs charged) and your obsession with Tyner being a wingnut.


Nobody "sees" that he's done that because he didn't do that! I mean, in the little bubble of mental illness ABL resides, maybe that's what she believes, but being mad about the one thing doesn't preclude being mad about other related things. I mean, those things are pretty similar! It's not dishonest to be mad about both of them.

So when are the hostilities over? I didn't know that had been defined.

Here's another criminal prosecution on Wall Street that Glenzilla forgot about when he stated, in writing, that it was a FACT that there had been no criminal prosecutions on Wall Street:

2 Bear Stearns Fund Leaders Are Acquitted, November 10, 2009

Is Glenn just stupid and incompetent, or is he just a flat-out dishonest hack?

goofy, do you understand the difference between criminal and civil prosecutions, and the requisite degree of proof for each? Civil is far easier (see OJ).

Do you realize that there have been around 100 civil prosecutions/settlements on Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, CountryWide, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, BofA, etc.

The list is not exhaustive, and it includes one state prosecution (CountryWide) b/c fed agencies often unload cases to states when states have better laws and resources to successfully prosecute. Then you have the recent $26 billion settlement with lenders.

Again, tell me how you propose to prove criminal fraud with no wiretaps?

Whistlerblowers? Good idea.

Whistleblowers Risked Careers for Mortgage Settlement [the recent $26B settlement]

There's another recent case I can't find now wherein a whistlerblower forced a settlement, but it wasn't enough for criminal fraud.

In FACT, guess what the Dodd-Frank law, for which you posted the Jon Stewart/John Oliver funny video to ridicule it, includes?

Dodd-Frank - Title 9 Sect. B - Increasing Regulatory Enforcement and Remedies

When Stars and FTP were indicted for bank fraud, there was the d-bag from Australia who provided emails, records, and testimony. He was essentially a "whistleblower" too, but behind bars, and with access to "proof".

You seem to think you just get outrageously outraged after reading the latest Glenzilla dishonest and factually incorrect screed about "...no criminal prosecutions on Wall Street..., get your marching boots on, march on Wall Street, and drag people to trial. It doesn't work like that. Wall Street will produce far more and far better attorneys than OJ. Criminal Fraud often comes down to he said/she said, unless there are records or wiretaps. My guess is that these Wall Street crooks, with billions of dollars at their disposal to hire the best lawyers, legally insulated themselves from potential legal liability.

P.S. I'm watching Stewart now too, so don't expect a reply to w/e silliness you post, cuz Stewart is funnier than you are, not by much tho.

Post 90 is actual evidence. So is my previous post. You ignore it.

If I get a chance, I want to parse your previous post, the one where you claim that I posted some stuff about "some guy exaggerating". I didn't really know what you were talking about, but I later realized that you were saying that Glenn and Kroft were "exaggerating" by stating that it was a "fact" that "there were no criminal prosecutions on Wall Street". I mean, LOL. You can call that "exaggeration" if you want, but you and I both know it's far worse than that, and I realize that that is prolly the closest you will come to admitting that Glenn is dishonest and you were wrong.

Also, pretty funny that first you demand to know what my "point" is. Then, when I clearly state it for you in BOLD, you run to the other end of the field and back a couple of times to swap goal-posts. Then you say, "What's your conclusion". LOL Guess what? My point is the same as my conclusion: Glenn is a dishonest hack.

More to come... (just cuz u seem to hate that)

Oh, here's more: I posted the Balloon Juice article b/c you led-off the How Libertarians Win Stuff thread w/ a Balloon Juice peice, but oddly, you included no "point" and no "conclusion".

And I give you credit for apparently reading my tl;dr posts, which is more than most of the Glenbots here have done.

And I won't say that Scott Brown rocks or anything, but his daughters do.

And tbh, MD, I just expect a lot more from self-described liberals than I do from conservatives and libertarians, like no willful ignorance and better debate skills, not look over there, substance-free distraction. I expect the argument to be attacked at its core.

btw, here is Glenn's attempt at contrition and admitting that he was not truthful in that Obama: No comment on Wall Street article

Another Glenzilla "UPDATE" (at the end of his article, of course, not in the first paragraph, where he made the error/dishonest hack and where most readers stop reading):
Yeah, but Glenn didn't say that until someone called out his bs.

And nevermind that Geithner had nothing to do with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley financial deregulation bill during his Clinton years, and nvm that Rubin and Summers are not part of Obama's admin now.

But worse, Glenn completely ignores additional deregulation that occurred after Bush took office, like the change to the Net Capital Rule and Self-Reg models.

2004 (SEC):
That rule change allowed ridiculous risk-taking, along with the Net Capital Requirement itself, which allowed investment banks to leverage from ~12-1 to 33-1. A mere 3% decline in asset values wipes a company out at 33-1. That change came in 2004 as well.

Shortly after 2008, I blamed Glass-Steagall's 2000 repeal for the collapse as well, but you have to ask yourself why other large, foreign banks can operate without Glass-Steagall without blowing up. USA banks are only near the bottom of the Top 10 of the world's largest. UK, Germany, Japan, China, France all have larger banks that combine retail depository, commercial, and investment banking. The US has 2 at 8th and 9th, and only 3 total in the top 20 banks. Bring back Glass-Steagall, and the US would probably have no banks in the top 20. How could that be possible?

EDIT: South Park is hilarious tonight, some ObamaBots going crazy in Colorado or something, and a diamond in Obama's anus. LOL

OK like maybe you don't know how it works, but when you put the words inside the apostrophes that means you are quoting someone. Greenwald quoted Kroft.

There's nothing dishonest about what Kroft said. A very serious issue with the Obama administration is that they continued the Bush-era leniency towards Wall Street malfeasance.

OK? You could try to make that argument in a more focused way. Like, instead of these walls of text that are like half bolded and full of bizarre ramblings about SEC rules, provide isolated examples of Greenwald(actually Greenwald) lying. Maybe with links to reputable sources?

Not all Balloon Juice blog entries are created equal. ABL is a hack, for example she wrote that terrible article about GG you linked earlier in this thread.