http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/04/doj-and-several-states-expected-to-file-civil-charges-against-standard-and-poors Comments On: DOJ and Several States Expected to File Civil Charges Against Standard and Poor's by Grant Brissey en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 25 May 2013 10:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Why anybody treats them as some sort of statement of objective fact, I do not know.

Because in a completely fraud-based society, it is imperative such fantasy outfits exist: there must always be a senior arbiter who announced that naked emporer is indeed wearing clothes.

And, if you wish to dig deeper, you just might wish to read that FCIC report sometime.
Posted by sgt_doom]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:09:43 -0800 The Stranger @7, sarah70, I'm sorry, but you're a complete moron.

You accept EVERYTHING at superficial, or face, value. Ted Bundy used to routinely entrap women like yourself (assuming your name correctly indicates your sex) by such unfortunate gullibility.

FYI: Bundy wasn't working at a suicide hotline 'cause he was a caring dood, dood!

Don't take everything a face value, learn to think for yourself and to think both analytically, and independently.

Just because some absolute douchetard on FoxFiction, CNN, NPR, PBS, ABC, CBS, MNBC (or what the eff it's called at the moment) tells you some drivel, don't make it so.

As Abraham Lincoln once remarked, "Calling a dog's tail it's fifth leg, doesn't change it from being a tail."

Got neurons????
Posted by sgt_doom]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:07:00 -0800 The Stranger @10, floater, makes an excellent comment:

Here's my naive comment: How about we withdraw their credibility by ignoring their "expert" opinions from now on? What kind of power have we actually given these agencies?

This learned opinion was put forth many, many years ago, by Louis Brandeis, in his epochal book, Other People's Money, and How the Bankers Use It.

Speaking of epochal, by any chance did ANYONE at The Stranger bother to read the epochal report published quite, quite some time back, the FCIC Report, by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, where this was all explained?

Why do I already suspect I know the answer to this?

The evidence has long been out there, of course this is partial blame shifting, as the culprits were really: Robert Rubin, Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, Arthur Levitt, Neal Wolin, Bill Clinton, and JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America, and on and on and on......


Posted by sgt_doom]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:59:33 -0800 The Stranger Posted by retarded average american]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:43:34 -0800 The Stranger http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/…
Posted by OuterCow]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 06:42:52 -0800 The Stranger music download
Posted by music download]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 00:39:51 -0800 The Stranger
My guess is that the answer will be that they've rigged the game so that we have no choice but to listen to their oracles.

It's too good to think that the CEO's will lose their careers and go to jail, in addition to forfeiting their fortunes. Oh, I can dream.
Posted by floater]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 22:28:54 -0800 The Stranger http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/the…

Posted by gregok]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:49:44 -0800 The Stranger Posted by heywhatsit!?]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:22:52 -0800 The Stranger Posted by sarah70]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:20:40 -0800 The Stranger
The real problem is not the credit rating agencies themselves-they're easily corrupted in the same way any judge of arbitrary quality is easily corrupted. The problem lies in our acceptance of credit ratings as if they were some gold-standard scientific measurement.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:10:25 -0800 The Stranger Posted by MarkyMark]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:57:18 -0800 The Stranger
The gist of this is that the evidence is showing S&P's changed its published "opinions" solely to improve S&P's own business prospects. If they lose the First Amendment protections the DOJ is just the start - that leaves them open to investor suits. That 's what has S&P shitting itself right now.

All credit for the little I may (or may not) know about this goes to Calculated Risk. Tanta vive!
Posted by gloomy gus]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:48:06 -0800 The Stranger
@1, I'd like someone to go to jail but at least someone is saying, "Oh Hell No!" to the $100m fine S&P was willing to pay in a negotiated, admit no fault or wrong doing, settlement.
Posted by BornAgainInBellevue]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:47:32 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Teslick]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 17:40:18 -0800 The Stranger
Cause they're not. Not a single one.

Nada.

Enjoy being a Third World Banana Republic.
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 17:39:44 -0800 The Stranger