Obama spanks Wall Street.

[TheMercenary]

You know I would buy into that TGRR if the Demoncrats did not control Congress and the purse strings for the last 2 years.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You know I would buy into that TGRR if the Demoncrats did not control Congress and the purse strings for the last 2 years.

Oh, yeah...and the 5 years before that was full of angelic choirs singing, and the apotheosis of clean government and fiscal responsibility.



And all of our current financial difficulties started in January of 2007, rather than starting in the Carter administration, and carried on since then by both parties in all 3 branches of government.

Silly me. I forgot that the GOP is where all the honest politicians go.

Har har!

Originally Posted by TGRR

And all of our current financial difficulties started in January of 2007, rather than starting in the Carter administration, and carried on since then by both parties in all 3 branches of government.

I personally think it started with Reagan supply side ("voodoo" - GHW Bush) economics and deregulation (remember the $billions S&L bail out) and exacerbated by Clinton and the Republican Congress and further banking deregulation in the late 90s when the budget was getting fat and the economy was on a roll.

And then six more years of supply side economics and deregulation with virtually no Congressional oversight....while at the same time, paying for a $hundreds of billions (off budget) for an unprovoked war.

What I find most fucked up of all is that at the base of the Republican alternative stimulus package is more failed supply side economics and the "free market will fix itself" (deregulation) proposals.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You know I would buy into that TGRR if the Demoncrats did not control Congress and the purse strings for the last 2 years.

The Democrats really had very little control over the purse strings, with Bush vetoes (or threats of vetoes) of every appropriations bill....and no where near the 2/3 votes needed to override. Their options were to shut down the government and be blamed for not providing funds for troops on the front lines in Iraq/Afghanistan...holding up Social Security checks, etc. or find a way to at least make the Bush bills more palatable.

At best, you could make a weak case that there was shared responsibility for the last two years....following six years of the Republican Congress abrogating its oversight responsibilities and failing to "check" the excesses of the Bush administration and instead, gave Bush a "blank check."

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Democrats really had very little control over the purse strings, with Bush vetoes (or threats of vetoes) of every appropriations bill....and no where near the 2/3 votes needed to override. Their options were to shut down the government and be blamed for not providing funds for troops on the front lines in Iraq/Afghanistan...holding up Social Security checks, etc. or find a way to at least make the Bush bills more palatable.

At best, you could make a weak case that there was shared responsibility for the last two years....following six years of the Republican Congress abrogating its oversight responsibilities and failing to "check" the excesses of the Bush administration and instead, gave Bush a "blank check."

Sorry, the Demoncrats own it.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You know I would buy into that TGRR if the Demoncrats did not control Congress and the purse strings for the last 2 years.

*rolleyes* They had no control over anything. They had, what, a majority of 1 or 2 in the Senate? That isn't enough to pass anything. And bush just vetoed everything anyway, unless it was something he wanted.

The truth is, democrats always try to get along. They always make concessions. Republicans NEVER do. When Clinton was in office, they completely shut down the government for, what was it, 2 weeks or something? When have democrats ever been so unreasonable? And... republicans would do it again today, even with our economy slipping into the abyss, because they don't give a shit about the people of this country. They only care about their base, and their ideology.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

*rolleyes* They had no control over anything. They had, what, a majority of 1 or 2 in the Senate? That isn't enough to pass anything. And bush just vetoed everything anyway, unless it was something he wanted.

The truth is, democrats always try to get along. They always make concessions. Republicans NEVER do. When Clinton was in office, they completely shut down the government for, what was it, 2 weeks or something? When have democrats ever been so unreasonable? And... republicans would do it again today, even with our economy slipping into the abyss, because they don't give a shit about the people of this country. They only care about their base, and their ideology.

Clinton shut the government down (twice), when he turned the GOP's budget away for excessive spending, not the other way around.

It was about the only thing the schmuck did that was worth a damn.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TGRR

It was about the only thing the schmuck did that was worth a damn.

Haiti, the Balkans, the averted Pakistan Indian war, welfare, responsible budgets, the 1996 Federal Communication Act, completely defagging Saddam (which we did not realize at that time), stopping massive worldwide terrorism planned for the Millennium (including LAX, NY Time Square, Toronto, Egypt, Amman Jordan, etc.), worldwide respect for America never seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis, ...

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by tw

Haiti, the Balkans, the averted Pakistan Indian war,

Not our fucking problem.

Originally Posted by tw

responsible budgets,

Already said I liked that.

Originally Posted by tw

the 1996 Federal Communication Act,

That was no accomplishment. The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it continued the historic industry consolidation begun by Reagan, whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996 and 6 in 2005.

Originally Posted by tw

completely defagging Saddam (which we did not realize at that time),

Saddam was defanged during the 1990/1991 trade show.

Originally Posted by tw

stopping massive worldwide terrorism planned for the Millennium (including LAX, NY Time Square, Toronto, Egypt, Amman Jordan, etc.),

Um, yeah. Credible link to these threats?

Originally Posted by tw

worldwide respect for America never seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis, ...

...Handed over the last dregs of our country to East Asia, by signing Bush 41's NAFTA crap. Hired a Nazi named Reno. The Clipper Chip. Pardoned a pack of scumbags. Waffled on the Gays in the military business. Threatened doctors in CA who advised using pot on chemo patients.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw
...the averted Pakistan Indian war,

Originally Posted by TGRR

Not our fucking problem.

Not our fucking problem if two nuclear powers on the planet we inhabit go to war? C'mon.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Quote:

Not our fucking problem if two nuclear powers on the planet we inhabit go to war? C'mon.

Let them go at it. We need a population reduction.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Quote:

Not our fucking problem if two nuclear powers on the planet we inhabit go to war? C'mon.

Meh. We receive more crud from the testing in the 60s than we would if those two attention whores burn each other to cinders.

The Chinese will catch some, though. Boo hoo hoo.

[tw]

A long list of denials without a single supporting fact? Let's add reality to some of your denials:

The 1996 Federal Communication Act:

Originally Posted by TGRR

That was no accomplishment. The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it continued the historic industry consolidation begun by Reagan, ...

Meanwhile the act forced anti-innovative communication companies to either provide a stifled 1981 technology called DSL, OR open their lines so that anyone could provide broadband. Yes, DSL technology was demonstrated even in 1981 when American communication companies were routinely stifling innovation - until 1996. Technology that should have been widely available in the 1990s still was not available until the 1996 Federal Communication Act all but required it.

Stopping massive worldwide terrorism planned for the Millennium (including LAX, NY Time Square, Toronto, Egypt, Amman Jordan, etc.):

Originally Posted by TGRR

Um, yeah. Credible link to these threats?

You are supposed to learn basic history before having opinions. Those attacks stopped by Clinton are common knowledge. Even described in detail by Richard Clark who was head of the White House CounterTerrorism Security Group (CSG). It takes almost nothing to learn how Clinton mobilized then entire government resulting in Diana Dean finding an LAX bomb in WA. Same attacks to even sink the USS The Sullivans failed (because bombers loaded too much explosives and sunk their own boat).

Clinton regarded bin Laden as the number one threat to America which is why he even created Alec Station - a group assigned only to get bin Laden. As Richard Clark so bluntly said, "George W Bush, who failed to act on the threats from Al Qaeda despite repeated warnings ..." Clinton personally warned President-elect Bush of the threat he considered the most dangerous. Nobody could have asked more of Clinton. When Cofer Black warned of the Millennium attack in December 1999, Clinton responded by mobilizing every government agency. FISA judges (secret courts to authorize wiretaps during national emergencies) were swamped with subpoena requests. Even the RCMP were informed of sleeper cells they did not know about. You did not know any of this? Meanwhile, George Jr latter disbanded Alec Station because terrorism was not a threat.

All that is common knowledge to those who learn. Naysaying is how those without knowledge use Limbaugh tactics to deny reality.

No credible links are necessary because you are expected to first know this basic history before having opinions. If you know Clinton did so little, then you must deny what every informed American knows: what Diana Dean did.

Originally Posted by TGRR

Not our fucking problem.

A language often associated with those who always know and need not learn facts. Therefore you know Pakistan is not our f problem?

Knowledge easily identifies what is probably the greatest threat to the world and the US: Pakistan. Apparently you did not learn a long list of reasons why, or just don't care to know. So you have no appreciation of what Clinton did.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Clinton regarded bin Laden as the number one threat to America which is why he even created Alec Station - a group assigned only to get bin Laden.

Then why didn't he take him out when Bin Laden was handed to him on a silver platter? Sounds like revisionist history to me.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by tw

You are supposed to learn basic history before having opinions.

Hey...conversation over.

When you can speak in a civil tone, let me know and we can continue.

TGRR,
Knows that appeal to "common knowledge" isn't evidence for a position.