Proof... It's what's for dinner: Part 2

Okay. So a Facebook user happened to see a link to LoudMouthElephant. He apparently read through the blog and took objection to the post "Proof... It's what's for dinner. Or is it?" He was too cowardly (or maybe just didn't know what he was talking about) to intelligently debate his position on the blog. I invited him to post (trust me, I want to see debate here), but he hasn't said anything yet. Since I encourage debate, I have posted what he said below. I'll start by saying I think he is the precise OWS supporter I see all over the mainstream media. I'll write my opinion after:  

"hilarious! the entry on the banks *not* robbing people especially. a perfect real-world example from the data that showed FOX viewers were the most misinformed, and that the more FOX they watched the worse it was.
since you seemed sincere about not knowing of any examples, i would point you first to Cassano at AIG and the CDS fiasco. then look at how those were honored. might be a little over your head if you haven't already educated yourself enough to know the difference between a collateralized debt obligation and a credit default swap. then again, if you don't, why would you be posting a blog about that subject? just to embarrass yourself maybe?
politics is not sports. if you just like rooting for or against a team, go watch football and let the grownups worry about the grownup stuff. your noise isn't helping."

Let me start by saying that the whole purpose of the original post was that I wanted proof that the banks rob people. That's all. I took a poster I saw that accused banks of being thieves, and I challenged anyone (especially those that take this position) to actually be able to back this up. 

With that, the first thing this Rhodes Scholar does is mention some non-cited study or data that claims that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed. Okay Mr. Ph.D candidate, "a perfect real-world example from the data" is not a perfect, real-world example of anything. Just because you can say something doesn't mean it's true. Citing something as "the data" is pure garbage, and it gets thrown out entirely. In my original post, I never mentioned Fox News, and I never said that news websites had anything to do with the misinformed public. It seems that a great strategy for clueless liberals is to divert away from the real issue while claiming your opponent watches Fox News (of course, he gives no cited reasons why this would be a bad thing if it were the case).

His second paragraph starts with a few name-dropping quips. He mentions Joe Cassano of AIG and credit-default swaps (which I'm sure he picked up by quickly reading Cassano's page on Wikipedia). I don't know if this genius can read or not, because if he could he would have realized two things. One, the sale of credit-default swaps was perfectly legal, and two, the legislation that made these financial instruments legal (because of deregulation) was signed by Bill Clinton. Yes... Bill Clinton (Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000). Additionally, if he would have read further on Cassano's Wikipedia, he would have seen that Cassano has contributed to the campaigns of Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. Lesson: don't talk about things when you have no clue what you're talking about. 

After this, he goes into personal insults. This is another completely expected move right from the liberal playbook. He assumes I don't have an education in finance (it's actually what my degree is in) and then claims that I'm not adult enough to handle what I'm blogging about. What a joke. I am by no means Milton Friedman, but I do know some things... just some. And the personal insults? Please. Nothing lowers you and your argument more than slinging dirt instead of facts.

In the end, I posed a major question. Can someone please tell me how banks are robbing people? To rob means: to take something from (someone) by unlawful force or threat of violence; steal from. And, news flash: robbing is illegal. Credit-default swaps are not. My advice: don't defend your position by citing things that are legal while hurling insults and providing no proof of anything illegal at all. To me, not only did he not refute my position while defending his, but he just made himself look upset at the wrong people. He is ticked at the writer of a conservative blog though the party of the President that passed the deregulating legislation making credit-default swaps legal was the democratic party. 

I'm only one set of eyes and ears and my opinions aren't the gold standard. I am wrong about this? Is my analysis of what this guy said off base?