Comments on: Durbin Sold Stocks After Closed Door Meeting

By: Darrel

Darrel — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:51:54 +0000

No I wouldn’t. Not even close. No way.

It’s not even worth mentioning. These guys attend meetings all the time. Trying to correlate attendance of a meeting, and selling stock (at this time?!), is ridiculous. *Lots* of people were selling their stocks and moving them around right then. By mid-October the DOW had just dropped 2,400 points in ten days.

Oct 1 = 10.8k

Oct 10 = 8.4k

I wonder if that might have had something to do with him selling stocks and buying the historically dependable Berkshire?

Let me give you a debate tip. Don’t defend the indefensible and don’t make assertions you can’t support. This accusation, a thin and baseless correlation, is not something I would ever mention, never mind shout “from the rooftops.”

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:05:50 +0000

Darrel, if it is true, it is not an insult.
Perception is reality here.

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:00:26 +0000

Darrel, you and I both know that if this had been a conservative, you would be shouting accusations from the rooftops- don’t even pretend otherwise, so do not go all “holier than thou” on us- that attitude doesn’t suit an atheist.

By: Darrel

Darrel — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:51:37 +0000

When I quoted you I edited out the distracting childish insults a bit: “Durbin, an [insult] did something questionable…”

Bigd: “I don’t know where the insult is.”

Really? Try this:

“Durbin, an Illinois thug and IDIOT (hope you read this Dick) did something questionable and you ignore it.”

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:49:20 +0000

I made no such claim. I pointed out that the appearance is of impropriety and it certainly is.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:48:35 +0000

I did not say it was insider trading.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:48:04 +0000

You are assuming things not in question. Appearance is reality and he gave the appearance of doing something underhanded.

I don’t know where the insult is.

By: Darrel

Darrel — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:34:31 +0000

BIGD: “once again you assume facts not in evidence.>>

DAR
I don’t have to assume anything. All I have to do is point out that you have no facts supporting your assumption that there is causation between him attending a meeting, and selling some stock.

Bigd: No one said that Correlation shows causation.>>

DAR
Then there is no point to your post. Your whole post is based upon there being some causation inferred from this correlation.

You made a hamburger but you forgot to bring a patty. Where’s the beef?

BigD: “Durbin, an [insult] did something questionable…>>

DAR
Everything is “questionable.” You have to do a little better than that! This is embarrassing.

D.
———————
ps. I hold everyone to the same standard. You dribble out some supposed accusations of this and that but again you put no beef in the burger. Put some and I’ll roast it. Easy.

By: Darrel

Darrel — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:23:19 +0000

I wouldn’t say it was insider trading unless there was evidence showing that he had received “inside” information.

When you make the charge of insider trading, that’s the lynch pin you gotta have, or you got nothing.

By: Darrel

Darrel — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:20:27 +0000

BigD: “You use flawed logic by indicating that because he “took a bath” he did nothing wrong as if he meant to do it.>>

DAR
You fail to remember that it is you making the assertion of wrongdoing, and thus have an onus of providing evidence for your assertion. You got nothing. No, thing. Where’s the logic in that? There isn’t any.

You haven’t provided a single drop of evidence showing that his attendance at that meeting had anything whatsoever to do with any sale of any stock.

This is all circumstantial assertion and a product of your bottom!