The Loyal Opposition

[Undertoad]

You know, I've never wanted to discuss stuff less with people. Have fun storming the castle, you win I'm out.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You know, I've never wanted to discuss stuff less with people. Have fun storming the castle, you win I'm out.

Oh I see, it's got to be your parameters, your rules, your pre planned discussion, or you take your marbles and go home.

The first thing in any debate is establishing what you're debating and both(or more) parties understanding and agreeing on it. we haven't established whether we're debating the value of the law, or if it's just a political bone, or the segment of the population it affects directly, or if it will actually curb abuses by evil people.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You know, I've never wanted to discuss stuff less with people. Have fun storming the castle, you win I'm out.

Good idea, you had a losing hand...

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Financial planners are under-regulated? Here is a "problem" that ONLY affects the upper middle class. It's not exactly the 1%, but it's the 10%-35% who care about this, but good on protecting them and stuff, they are the new Democratic Party after all. Since they are the electorate, they are going to need to be focused on, in the next few decades. Well not "need". They don't "need" but sure enough they will get attention!

You got a financial planner Biggie? Corporate or independent?

and you played it badly.



Still I am interesting in hearing your defense of the suspension of the rule. I'm interested in hearing a rationale for why it's a better idea for the public to have the lower "suitability standard" in place of the higher "fiduciary standard".

If you come back and play, I'll share my marbles with you.


ok, that was dirtier than I thought at first. srsly, though, if you got an argument to make, I'm open to hearing it.