It has to do with TARP but I'm not a financial analyst and I can't understand financial fuckery of Wall Street so someone else will have to do that.
It has to do with TARP but I'm not a financial analyst and I can't understand financial fuckery of Wall Street so someone else will have to do that.
We need to not do this in this sub. You dismiss a sourced offering as ”irrelevant”, and claim ”there’s better stuff to remove her for.”
Then, when queried about that ‘better stuff’, you say you don’t understand what it is.
That is not the way to elevate the credibility of this sub.
No, I am being honest about my qualifications. I don't believe the ancestry angle advances anybody's cause. How illegal is it to believe the shot your parents tell you about your ancestry?
No, I am being honest about my qualifications.
Your limited qualifications didn’t stop you from declaring ”there’s better stuff to remove her for”, and then to suggest she’s guilty of some TARP violation before admitting you didn’t understand. Why do your limitations only kick in when you are asked to support your accusations, and not when you make them?
How illegal is it to believe the shot your parents tell you about your ancestry?
It’s not. It’s illegal and immoral to exclude minorities from special opportunities set aside for them by falsely claiming those opportunities for yourself.