Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

"My central point is explicitly refuted but implicitly irrefutable"

Wrong. It was not refuted. It wasn't even addressed.

There is no effective difference between Treasury having an explicit legal requirement to minimize taxpayer losses and them consistently acting as if they do. And there is no duty that Treasury has to anyone that would prevent them from converting the seniors into commons.

If you want an example of explicit refutation of a main point, look at this post.

You should just stick to name-calling. It's not any better of a look but at least you can save some keystrokes.