OK how about your posts are like a Dennis Miller or Ann Coulter skit. My point wasn't about politics it was about saterical comedy - making fun of people that say and do ridiculous things - such as you my friend.
Political Thread: Global Warming Edition
- Thread starter kybobcat_rivals185207
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, Bush and his administration never said a word about the financial crisis... lol.
I did forget Barney Frank's statements about "no problems" at the GSE's.
No one on here is absolving the Bush admin; quite the contrary, almost every Conservative acknowledges his role in spending issues.
But Dems created the problem, then put the problem on steroids, and then want to blame a guy who actually warned us... well, your credibility is greatly diminished.
Bush administration warnings about financial...
I did forget Barney Frank's statements about "no problems" at the GSE's.
No one on here is absolving the Bush admin; quite the contrary, almost every Conservative acknowledges his role in spending issues.
But Dems created the problem, then put the problem on steroids, and then want to blame a guy who actually warned us... well, your credibility is greatly diminished.
Bush administration warnings about financial...
...anytime the government becomes involved in anything, it's all but guaranteed that it will go too far
On the contrary, I got your point about what you thought was comedy. The irony is, you can't see how much more you fit into that catagory of posters. All I have basically said to you was, own it.Originally posted by Deeeefense:
OK how about your posts are like a Dennis Miller or Ann Coulter skit. My point wasn't about politics it was about saterical comedy - making fun of people that say and do ridiculous things - such as you my friend.
I know a couple Lib-Dums that refer to Vietnam as "Nixon's War" all of the time. They must be related to some of the obumma-lovers on this board.
The internet has kind of sucked up to this point. Thankfully Obama was able to step in and set the FFC straight and save us.
Given Obama's track record on government takeovers, I'm sure this will be great!!!
Listen, I'm more liberal than most on this board, but I don't know how the hell you can support net neutrality.
I support government regulation...when it's needed. The internet is a great, open, free exchange of ideas and information. "Help" is the last thing it needed.
I support government regulation...when it's needed. The internet is a great, open, free exchange of ideas and information. "Help" is the last thing it needed.
Since the internet industry is basically an oligopoly, I'm open to requiring them to allow equal access and speeds to various content providers.
I think that could be done with one sentence.
But when Obama uses his old Chicago tactics to exert illegal influence, and we get over 300 pages of more we-need-to-pass-it-before-we-let-you-find-out-whats-in-it legislation, I immediately take a hard line against it.
I think that could be done with one sentence.
But when Obama uses his old Chicago tactics to exert illegal influence, and we get over 300 pages of more we-need-to-pass-it-before-we-let-you-find-out-whats-in-it legislation, I immediately take a hard line against it.
Ok, I'm not politically versed enough to argue about a lot, so I mostly keep to myself, however this whole statement is wild. Unfortunately my wife is "unemployed" right now and is doing her best to work so she was given advice to set up with a temp company that NEVER works her, but since she is registered with them she isnt deemed unemployed which blew my mind. And why are higher wages a good thing? Doesn't that cost companies more money? And don't they just pass those cost on to their customers? When you "run" a company isn't labor one of the costs everyone tries diligently to control? Just curious on that one.
Oh and lastly, while EVERYONE thinks we are doing a lot better, most are not aware that it's mostly from the construction market coming back. BUT we are far from good shape. We have thousands of housing inventory empty across the US and everyone is content with it because it's allowing new construction to happen, but even that isn't enough. We were projected to build 1,000,000 houses last year and fell 300,000 short. This year is starting at a much accelerated pace so that's good, but inventories are all in a surplus, which is not good at all for anyone but the buyer. The economy is propped up for now.
The problem is that there isnt 10 million new jobs, theres 10 million replacement jobs that is still short of where we were. Not to mention they're lowering paying, while the cost of living has gone up. For christs sake the number of employed is equal to what it was during the carter years.
This country is in a world of hurt, now it's not all Obamas fault, but he's the captain of this ship, therefore he gets the blame. Why in hell would he veto a privately funded 8 billion dollar project? It doesn't have **** to do with the environment, it's because his big money donors have nothing to gain for it. Nevermind the thousands it would employ to build. Absolutely mnd boggling
This country is in a world of hurt, now it's not all Obamas fault, but he's the captain of this ship, therefore he gets the blame. Why in hell would he veto a privately funded 8 billion dollar project? It doesn't have **** to do with the environment, it's because his big money donors have nothing to gain for it. Nevermind the thousands it would employ to build. Absolutely mnd boggling
Good lord man have you been totally brainwashed by the plutocrates? I stopped reading your post after that. but I'll tell you what, if you don't think it's good for people to make more, how about telling your boss tomorrow you would like to have a 25% pay cut becasue that would be good for the company, and as all good wingnuts have memorized, when companies make more, prosperity trickles down on us all
Big False!
1- I'm salary plus commission, so when I tell my boss that he will just say ok well work less. See I believe pay should match work level, and most of the time the hard workers get to the money eventually, while the lazy *** min wage seekers get just that so why reward them?
2- no not all money going to the company is good, I'm no idiot, but as a small business owner myself(or assisting my wife in purchasing a daycare) when those salary increase my customers will pay the difference in their price so it doesn't impact me, or at my income.
3- please spare me with the wingnut nonsense, also please quit spewing all the left wing nonsense too! I can pick both parties apart quite easily to be honest but I was focusing on the economics not politics.
This post was edited on 2/26 10:00 PM by krazykats
1- I'm salary plus commission, so when I tell my boss that he will just say ok well work less. See I believe pay should match work level, and most of the time the hard workers get to the money eventually, while the lazy *** min wage seekers get just that so why reward them?
2- no not all money going to the company is good, I'm no idiot, but as a small business owner myself(or assisting my wife in purchasing a daycare) when those salary increase my customers will pay the difference in their price so it doesn't impact me, or at my income.
3- please spare me with the wingnut nonsense, also please quit spewing all the left wing nonsense too! I can pick both parties apart quite easily to be honest but I was focusing on the economics not politics.
This post was edited on 2/26 10:00 PM by krazykats
Well you're obviously talking about something you know nothing about. Please tell Netflix it's a free exchange.
** News Flash from the 'Culture of Corruption' Department **
Washington Post: "Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept."
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming already in progress.
I think most people have not addressed Carter because the contention that Carter was a better President than almost anyone is ridiculous on its face. He was one of, if not the worst, President in the history of the country. Let's start with what you call the "Bush economic crisis". The policies that led to the economic crisis was started under Carter when he accused lenders of racism in their lending practices because many inner city blacks could not get home loans. He pushed for, and got passed, the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to relax their lending standards so that low income people could get home loans. You can argue, and I would agree, that each iteration of congress that came after Carter should have addressed this horrible piece of legislation, but that does not absolve Carter from being the root cause of the economic crisis that we just went through.
Beyond that, his administration presided over double digit inflation rates and interest rates that exceeded 20% at times. He had no economic answers for any of those situations. The unemployment rate was over 7%. On top of that, he severely weakened the military and we became a joke around the world. The Iran hostage crisis was an embarrassment. His administration tried to execute a rescue that was horribly botched making us look even weaker. Notice the hostages were immediately released when Regan took office. He presided over an energy crisis that he had no clue how to address. He spent millions training Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those are just the highlights. I think he is a fundamentally good person, but he was totally incompetent and in way over his head as President.
The kind of ungodly dishonesty that got deee his rep on here. Below is an article from the Columbia Journalism Review that spells out all the deregs that were passed under Clinton. Another indepth article worth googling is "Rethinking Rubin".
As for jobs, we have few people working that did under Bush and they are making less wages while household expense has gone up multiples of inflation. Other than healthcare which is driven by UCA bloat, the top jobs are temps and service section.
But deee has never been interested in an actual reasonable look at things other than protecting who is currently cheerleading for.
Bill Clinton sat down with Fareed Zakaria last week on CNN for a typically wide-ranging interview that touched on chemical weapons, big data and privacy, whether Chelsea Clinton should run for office, etc.
You know, the usual Bill Clinton interview. But Clinton's comment about his record on regulation is an actual newsmaker, because it's a giant whopper:What happened? The American people gave the Congress to a group of very conservative Republicans. When they passed bills with the veto proof majority with a lot of Democrats voting for it, that I couldn't stop, all of a sudden we turn out to be maniacal deregulators. I mean, come on. I know Senator Warren said the other day, admitted when she introduced a bill to reinstate the division between commercial and investment banks, she admitted that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause one single solitary financial institution to fail.[/QUOTE]
This is, to be kind, ********. Memory is a hazy thing, but I have a hard time believing Clinton doesn't know full well he's not telling the truth here (and with his record, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt).
Let's go to the tape. Clinton installed Robert Rubin and Larry Summers in the Treasury, which resulted in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which officially did in Glass-Steagall and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which left the derivatives market a laissez-faire Wild West (not to mention a disastrous strong dollar policy that was a critical and underrated factor in the bubble). He also reappointed Ayn Rand-acolyte Alan Greenspan, who has as much responsibility as anyone for creating the crisis, as Fed chairman-twice.[/B]
Now it's true that Clinton faced an extremely hostile Republican Congress for the last six years of his presidency. But his administration actively encouraged the big deregulatory legislation, and squashed its own dissenters, like Brooksley Born, who saw disaster ahead.
Clinton would have you believe that he signed those bills because his administration was forced to by a GOP that was beholden as usual to Big Business, but then what about the deregulatory legislation he signed in 1994, before Gingrich & Co. took Congress?
Riegle-Neal hasn't got a tenth Bank of America.- See more at: http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/bill_clinton_the_republicans_m.php?page=all#sthash.9QVvcaa8.dpuf
Good summary of Carter, and your last line is also suitable for obumma... except for the "good person" part.
I didn't say he was better than most anyone else, just better than Bush, which isn't saying much. I wouldn't go as far with the criticism of Carter as you have but I have him well below average. At any rate trying to blame the economic melt down that occured in the 8th year of the Bush Presidency on people that served over a decade earlier is a lame argument IMO, especially since he had a Republican congress for 6 years. At the very least Bush is guilty of gross negligence when it comes to the economy.
Bush was not a great President by any stretch of the imagination, but Carter's economic policy and foreign policy were both disasters. I'm not sure he did anything well. Many of these types of government programs take years to turn into economic disasters. I agree that someone along the way should have changed it, so many people have blame in the most recent economic crisis, but Carter was the one who changed the policy and pushed for passage of the legislation that ultimately caused the issue. There is no avoiding that. Had that not been done during his administration, those bad loans would never have been made. Bush, at least, warned congress and tried to change the policy, but Barney Frank refused to act on those warnings. I'm not sure how you can hold Bush as responsible as you do when Frank would have been far more responsible for keeping the status quo than Bush, and Carter was the impetus for the policy to begin with. As mediocre as Bush was, he is not in Carter's league when it comes to ineptness.
This post was edited on 2/27 11:48 AM by cat_in_the_hat
RE: Bush's "Republican congress for 6 years"
FAIL.
You must be using obumma-math. Jeffords' (Vermont) switch gave the Dems the Senate for 1 1/2 years of the 2001-2002 session.
Originally posted by Deeeefense:
I didn't say he was better than most anyone else, just better than Bush, which isn't saying much. I wouldn't go as far with the criticism of Carter as you have but I have him well below average. At any rate trying to blame the economic melt down that occured in the 8th year of the Bush Presidency on people that served over a decade earlier is a lame argument IMO, especially since he had a Republican congress for 6 years. At the very least Bush is guilty of gross negligence when it comes to the economy.
Carter did have a significant foreign policy achievement, he negotiated the Camp David Accords that lead to a lasting peace between Iseral and Egypt. What did Bush accomplish other than destroying Iraq and turning it into a haven for terrorists?
Anyway US News ranks Bush the 10th worst president in history. Carter didn't make the cut.
GW Bush 10th Worst President
Here's another ranking of US Presidents done by 391 members of the American Political Science Association. The have W ranked 35th which would make him the 9th worst president in history.
Bush Ranks 35th
Bush Ranks 35th
Ranking Presidents right after they leave office is stupid, but maybe deee can find some more that fit his agenda. The last one with Clinton in the top 10 is especially stupid. See my post above on all the regs he dismantled that contributed to the recession.
Not a clickbait slideshow like above but very recent poll says Obama is the worst since WWII.
Worst!!!11!!
Worst!!!11!!
JMO, Trey Gowdy would be an interesting candidate for President. Maybe is too "watchdog" like to be a viable candidate but just seems to be in Washington for the right reasons unlike so many others around him. I just want someone who is going to take the Oath of POTUS seriously and do what is right to fix the mess this country is in right now.
http://youtu.be/koqrR4TWdLM
http://youtu.be/koqrR4TWdLM
Actually, that is not the US News ranking at all. That is the result of 5 different polls that were combined to construct and ranking. The author even discusses that the criteria used by the different people responding to the poll were different and represent biases. So to characterize it as an opinion of US News is wrong, it is merely a poll of a bunch of professors around the country, many of which are very liberal. He specifically looks at the list of a conservative professor at UA to contrast it with averaged results of the 5 polls.
a prominent critic of Islam was hacked to death with machetes after a speaking engagement at the University of Dhaka today.
I'm sure BlueKel will be able to cite examples of abortion doctors being hacked to death with scalpels.
I'm sure BlueKel will be able to cite examples of abortion doctors being hacked to death with scalpels.
Our DICTATOR has ordered ATF to ban 5.56 ammunition which runs in the AR-15. He could not get the guns banned in Congress,so he does another end run around congress to ban the bullets. This POS POTUS can't be gone soon enough for me. Hopefully the NRA has enough clout to take this to court. Obama has pissed on the constitution for 6 years.
Why do people consistently rank Clinton so highly? His presidency was pretty "meh".
I guess "it's the economy stupid". Presiding over a strong economy gives you lots of leeway.
- Status