Supposed is right. That's my whole point. There was no equality issue, just a manufactured one by politicians looking to earn political points. Big government trying to tell the lenders what was best. Lending is about credit worthiness, not one's ethnicity or anything else.Braddock wrote:
We never had this supposed equality issue in our lending practices here in Europe and yet we are in the same boat too because of reckless lending; our scenario would have been helped by Government oversight vetting dangerous lending practices, little Government failed us in our case... ironic really that you claim big Government fucked you guys while lefty Europe got fucked by small Government!
Stingray24 wrote:
Supposed is right. That's my whole point. There was no equality issue, just a manufactured one by politicians looking to earn political points. Big government trying to tell the lenders what was best. Lending is about credit worthiness, not one's ethnicity or anything else.Braddock wrote:
We never had this supposed equality issue in our lending practices here in Europe and yet we are in the same boat too because of reckless lending; our scenario would have been helped by Government oversight vetting dangerous lending practices, little Government failed us in our case... ironic really that you claim big Government fucked you guys while lefty Europe got fucked by small Government!
Are we honestly allocating blame along such strict partisan lines? ATG has already just mentioned Bush's own irresponsible policies.Braddock wrote:
I am now beginning to see how the right-wing mindset is viewing this crisis... the banks are the real victims because they were just trying to keep up with Democrat rules that forced them to give loans to irresponsible black people... have I got that about right?
I don't the the govt. told the banks they had to use predatory lending and then pass risk on to investors and businesses. The banks took that upon all by themselves.
I thought we covered the fact that Clinton started it, Bush let it go because it suited his agenda, the banks ran with it because the government let them and encouraged them, the people bought into it, and here we are.
I actually blame Alan Greenspan more than most. He tried to keep the housing market going for as long as he could. Kind of his swan song. "Look at this wonderful economy I built up." Then he retires and says he didn't see it coming. Bollocks.
I actually blame Alan Greenspan more than most. He tried to keep the housing market going for as long as he could. Kind of his swan song. "Look at this wonderful economy I built up." Then he retires and says he didn't see it coming. Bollocks.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
This whole economic meltdown is a designed thing.
I don't know if it is international bankers, my country waging economic warfare on the world or skull and bonz.
Wealth has been harvested. We have been handed massive debt. We are desperate and crying out for a solution the government is only too eager to provide as long as it involves more power for them.
Un. Believable.
That this is even being debated is comedy.
We are witnessing a global ass fucking of epic proportions.
that is the bush legacy.
I don't know if it is international bankers, my country waging economic warfare on the world or skull and bonz.
Wealth has been harvested. We have been handed massive debt. We are desperate and crying out for a solution the government is only too eager to provide as long as it involves more power for them.
Un. Believable.
That this is even being debated is comedy.
We are witnessing a global ass fucking of epic proportions.
that is the bush legacy.
Designed or not Obama is in power now and is trying to force feed us the Stimulus plan. So the current problem is wether or not this plan is a good one or not. Also the problem , at least in this thread, is Obama is failing on his promises.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
The Democrats are worse than the fucking Republicans. At least we all know when the Reps pull something like this, but the Democrats have the support of the media. It's like Obama is immune to skepticism from the media because he's so well liked.
O god lolDeadmonkiefart wrote:
The Democrats are worse than the fucking Republicans. At least we all know when the Reps pull something like this, but the Democrats have the support of the media. It's like Obama is immune to skepticism from the media because he's so well liked.
I don't think giant media corporations that have things like billionaire executives and stock holders are in the back pocket of Obama protecting hm from everything. Maybe those liberal media groups are just trying to target a specific demographic, which seems to be working out well. It's not like there aren't plenty of conservative radio shows, television shows, and websites.
I have to agree with Deadmonkiefart, the media has had a fascination with Obama. They have shown a distinct bias towards him and his policies. Now, they have started to turn a bit as he settles into his presidency. They seem to be more ready to point out flaws in his actions, or at least in his ability to get his agenda pushed.uevjHEYFFQ wrote:
O god lolDeadmonkiefart wrote:
The Democrats are worse than the fucking Republicans. At least we all know when the Reps pull something like this, but the Democrats have the support of the media. It's like Obama is immune to skepticism from the media because he's so well liked.
I don't think giant media corporations that have things like billionaire executives and stock holders are in the back pocket of Obama protecting hm from everything. Maybe those liberal media groups are just trying to target a specific demographic, which seems to be working out well. It's not like there aren't plenty of conservative radio shows, television shows, and websites.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Anything which happens in the first 9 months of a US Presidency is the fault of the previous guy.
This is a proven fact.
This is a proven fact.
Fuck Israel
Unless of course it is 911, then it is Bush's fault. Or so I hearDilbert_X wrote:
Anything which happens in the first 9 months of a US Presidency is the fault of the previous guy.
This is a proven fact.
Bush also was in on Peal Harbor, and had Kennedy shot. Actually both of them!!
Last edited by lowing (2009-02-09 07:44:12)
Yeah, I mean clearly it was all Clinton's fault that 911 happened...lowing wrote:
Unless of course it is 911, then it is Bush's fault. Or so I hear
Bush also was in on Peal Harbor, and had Kennedy shot. Actually both of them!!
Glad we agree, unless of course you think being a pussy in the eyes of your enemy, cutting our military, cutting intelligence funding and selling secrets had nothing to do with it.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Yeah, I mean clearly it was all Clinton's fault that 911 happened...lowing wrote:
Unless of course it is 911, then it is Bush's fault. Or so I hear
Bush also was in on Peal Harbor, and had Kennedy shot. Actually both of them!!
Besides Dilbert already said anything that happened 9 months into an administration was the fault of the previous administration. He said it was a proven fact. I believe him
This is a realistic assessment of what has contributed to our current mess. Clinton's policies may have been a precursor but Bush was happy to keep his policies going and exacerbated the situation further with rampant deregulation, also, the idea that the banks didn't run wild predominantly out of sheer greed and that they were some sort of poor victim, forced into this situation by "big evil liberal Government" is simply preposterous.LividBovine wrote:
I thought we covered the fact that Clinton started it, Bush let it go because it suited his agenda, the banks ran with it because the government let them and encouraged them, the people bought into it, and here we are.
I actually blame Alan Greenspan more than most. He tried to keep the housing market going for as long as he could. Kind of his swan song. "Look at this wonderful economy I built up." Then he retires and says he didn't see it coming. Bollocks.
I never called the banks victims. I said they were forced to come up with these bullshit loans at the hands of the democrats. They did it so they should suffer for it, as should the idiots who took on the loans. I have nothing to do with it and should not be forced to cover the incompetency of both parties. I work, I pay my bills, I should not be involved, and resent being forced to be involved.Braddock wrote:
This is a realistic assessment of what has contributed to our current mess. Clinton's policies may have been a precursor but Bush was happy to keep his policies going and exacerbated the situation further with rampant deregulation, also, the idea that the banks didn't run wild predominantly out of sheer greed and that they were some sort of poor victim, forced into this situation by "big evil liberal Government" is simply preposterous.LividBovine wrote:
I thought we covered the fact that Clinton started it, Bush let it go because it suited his agenda, the banks ran with it because the government let them and encouraged them, the people bought into it, and here we are.
I actually blame Alan Greenspan more than most. He tried to keep the housing market going for as long as he could. Kind of his swan song. "Look at this wonderful economy I built up." Then he retires and says he didn't see it coming. Bollocks.
No worries lowing, before you have finished paying off the $10 trillion spent so wisely on the war on terror i don't think a few billions matter much and your share of those trillions should sum up to something like $33.000 ...lowing wrote:
I never called the banks victims. I said they were forced to come up with these bullshit loans at the hands of the democrats. They did it so they should suffer for it, as should the idiots who took on the loans. I have nothing to do with it and should not be forced to cover the incompetency of both parties. I work, I pay my bills, I should not be involved, and resent being forced to be involved.Braddock wrote:
This is a realistic assessment of what has contributed to our current mess. Clinton's policies may have been a precursor but Bush was happy to keep his policies going and exacerbated the situation further with rampant deregulation, also, the idea that the banks didn't run wild predominantly out of sheer greed and that they were some sort of poor victim, forced into this situation by "big evil liberal Government" is simply preposterous.LividBovine wrote:
I thought we covered the fact that Clinton started it, Bush let it go because it suited his agenda, the banks ran with it because the government let them and encouraged them, the people bought into it, and here we are.
I actually blame Alan Greenspan more than most. He tried to keep the housing market going for as long as he could. Kind of his swan song. "Look at this wonderful economy I built up." Then he retires and says he didn't see it coming. Bollocks.
No wait ... your neighbour had nothing to do with the war on terror and neither does he profit from a job linked to it so you have to pay his share also, and his wife's share, and the shares of each of his 4 children ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
The war was voted on by all the democrats as well, in fact they voted to continue funding it at the same time they trashed Bush for fighting it.Varegg wrote:
No worries lowing, before you have finished paying off the $10 trillion spent so wisely on the war on terror i don't think a few billions matter much and your share of those trillions should sum up to something like $33.000 ...lowing wrote:
I never called the banks victims. I said they were forced to come up with these bullshit loans at the hands of the democrats. They did it so they should suffer for it, as should the idiots who took on the loans. I have nothing to do with it and should not be forced to cover the incompetency of both parties. I work, I pay my bills, I should not be involved, and resent being forced to be involved.Braddock wrote:
This is a realistic assessment of what has contributed to our current mess. Clinton's policies may have been a precursor but Bush was happy to keep his policies going and exacerbated the situation further with rampant deregulation, also, the idea that the banks didn't run wild predominantly out of sheer greed and that they were some sort of poor victim, forced into this situation by "big evil liberal Government" is simply preposterous.
No wait ... your neighbour had nothing to do with the war on terror and neither does he profit from a job linked to it so you have to pay his share also, and his wife's share, and the shares of each of his 4 children ...
So much for sticking by your own moral code.
Bush's inititves kept America safe for 7 years. I seriously doubt we will go another 7 before we get hit again after Obama "talks" to the terrorists.
My efforts in Iraq contributed directly in saving 3 helicopters and 6 crewmemebers lives. Nothing much you are going to say to make me feel bad about that. I am proud of it in fact.
My moral code has nothing to do with that?lowing wrote:
The war was voted on by all the democrats as well, in fact they voted to continue funding it at the same time they trashed Bush for fighting it.Varegg wrote:
No worries lowing, before you have finished paying off the $10 trillion spent so wisely on the war on terror i don't think a few billions matter much and your share of those trillions should sum up to something like $33.000 ...lowing wrote:
I never called the banks victims. I said they were forced to come up with these bullshit loans at the hands of the democrats. They did it so they should suffer for it, as should the idiots who took on the loans. I have nothing to do with it and should not be forced to cover the incompetency of both parties. I work, I pay my bills, I should not be involved, and resent being forced to be involved.
No wait ... your neighbour had nothing to do with the war on terror and neither does he profit from a job linked to it so you have to pay his share also, and his wife's share, and the shares of each of his 4 children ...
So much for sticking by your own moral code.
Bush's inititves kept America safe for 7 years. I seriously doubt we will go another 7 before we get hit again after Obama "talks" to the terrorists.
My efforts in Iraq contributed directly in saving 3 helicopters and 6 crewmemebers lives. Nothing much you are going to say to make me feel bad about that. I am proud of it in fact.
I've always been against your war on terror lowing, doesn't matter who voted for it and you guys invaded the wrong country tbh ... war breeds more violence and not going to war would have saved soooooo many more lives ... Bush keeping America safe for 7 years is utter BS, more American lives were lost on his watch than were lost in a very long time before that
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
re-read, I was talking about the moral code of the democrats who spoke out against the war, yet voted to keep funding it. I was not talking about you.Varegg wrote:
My moral code has nothing to do with that?lowing wrote:
The war was voted on by all the democrats as well, in fact they voted to continue funding it at the same time they trashed Bush for fighting it.Varegg wrote:
No worries lowing, before you have finished paying off the $10 trillion spent so wisely on the war on terror i don't think a few billions matter much and your share of those trillions should sum up to something like $33.000 ...
No wait ... your neighbour had nothing to do with the war on terror and neither does he profit from a job linked to it so you have to pay his share also, and his wife's share, and the shares of each of his 4 children ...
So much for sticking by your own moral code.
Bush's inititves kept America safe for 7 years. I seriously doubt we will go another 7 before we get hit again after Obama "talks" to the terrorists.
My efforts in Iraq contributed directly in saving 3 helicopters and 6 crewmemebers lives. Nothing much you are going to say to make me feel bad about that. I am proud of it in fact.
I've always been against your war on terror lowing, doesn't matter who voted for it and you guys invaded the wrong country tbh ... war breeds more violence and not going to war would have saved soooooo many more lives ... Bush keeping America safe for 7 years is utter BS, more American lives were lost on his watch than were lost in a very long time before that
Actually like it or not, we were not attacked since 911 and you have Bush to thank for that. This must be, since if we were attacked everyone would be blaming Bush. How about a little honesty regarding the matter.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I think the next democrat convension should be entirely devoted to 'how to pay your taxes'.
Maybe it's Obamas new method of getting extra funding for the stimulus bill, making politicians pay for it with their back taxes?
Maybe it's Obamas new method of getting extra funding for the stimulus bill, making politicians pay for it with their back taxes?