TakeYouToTasker Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 So would have Daffy Duck. Which makes it even more amazing that the Democrats managed to find a guy who actually manages to be even worse. It boggles the mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 Which makes it even more amazing that the Democrats managed to find a guy who actually manages to be even worse. It boggles the mind. You really think so? Bush was better than Obama? I think that's incredibly stupid. We should start a thread on that one. I'd say Obama is a light year ahead of Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 ... Can't say very many people do. Heck, the majority of people voted against him the first time he was elected, and he still needed a Conservative supreme court to put in office. Then he leaves the country in economic free fall to take off and paint. Oh ya, and all the mess in between Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinES3 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) Which makes it even more amazing that the Democrats managed to find a guy who actually manages to be even worse. It boggles the mind. Haha!! Now that's funny. It's quite simple really, yet genius. Just find the least qualified candidate (Who he himself stated was not experienced enough just 2 years prior) and energize a base that would never normally vote. Along with guilting single, white women into voting for a minority else they be considered racist. It was quite brilliant actually. Sometimes you must give credit where credit is due... Thats the liberal way after all, the ends always justify the means. Edited April 11, 2014 by SmokinES3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Can't say very many people do. Heck, the majority of people voted against him the first time he was elected, and he still needed a Conservative supreme court to put in office. Then he leaves the country in economic free fall to take off and paint. Oh ya, and all the mess in between The housing market was going to collapse no matter who was in office. There was a chance of reigning in Freddie & Fannie early in Bush's presidency but several key democrats made sure that their big donors were left untouched. They should have heeded Bush's requests to regulate them but chose not to for their own greedy reasons. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123137220550562585 Because of this, the Bush administration warned in the budget it issued in April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged. Their failure "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity" well beyond housing. Mr. Bush wanted to limit systemic risk by raising the GSEs' capital requirements, compelling preapproval of new activities, and limiting the size of their portfolios. Why should government regulate banks, credit unions and savings and loans, but not GSEs? Mr. Bush wanted the GSEs to be treated just like their private-sector competitors. But the GSEs fought back. They didn't want to see the Bush reforms enacted, because that would level the playing field for their competitors. Congress finally did pass the Bush reforms, but in 2008, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed. The largely unreported story is that to fend off regulation, the GSEs engaged in a lobbying frenzy. They hired high-profile Democrats and Republicans and spent $170 million on lobbying over the past decade. They also constructed an elaborate network of state and local lobbyists to pressure members of Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 The housing market was going to collapse no matter who was in office. There was a chance of reigning in Freddie & Fannie early in Bush's presidency but several key democrats made sure that their big donors were left untouched. They should have heeded Bush's requests to regulate them but chose not to for their own greedy reasons. http://online.wsj.co...137220550562585 Because of this, the Bush administration warned in the budget it issued in April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged. Their failure "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity" well beyond housing. Mr. Bush wanted to limit systemic risk by raising the GSEs' capital requirements, compelling preapproval of new activities, and limiting the size of their portfolios. Why should government regulate banks, credit unions and savings and loans, but not GSEs? Mr. Bush wanted the GSEs to be treated just like their private-sector competitors. But the GSEs fought back. They didn't want to see the Bush reforms enacted, because that would level the playing field for their competitors. Congress finally did pass the Bush reforms, but in 2008, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed. The largely unreported story is that to fend off regulation, the GSEs engaged in a lobbying frenzy. They hired high-profile Democrats and Republicans and spent $170 million on lobbying over the past decade. They also constructed an elaborate network of state and local lobbyists to pressure members of Congress. Oh, blame Democrats, blah blah. Didn't Bush have both houses of Congress with him after 2002? But those greedy Democrats!! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Oh, blame Democrats, blah blah. Didn't Bush have both houses of Congress with him after 2002? But those greedy Democrats!! lol Did you read the article? Bush barely had a majority in Congress for most of his years in office. That still doesn't mean that you can get legislation passed. If you would read the article you might get an idea of what this discussion is about. If you Google Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters and Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac you'll find some interesting videos that will show you what real reptiles are like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 Did you read the article? Bush barely had a majority in Congress for most of his years in office. That still doesn't mean that you can get legislation passed. If you would read the article you might get an idea of what this discussion is about. If you Google Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters and Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac you'll find some interesting videos that will show you what real reptiles are like. Democrats are bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 You really think so? Bush was better than Obama? I think that's incredibly stupid. We should start a thread on that one. I'd say Obama is a light year ahead of Bush Bush was better than Obama. Bush was a congenital moron, but he was a congenital moron who knew how to lead. Obama's just a narcissistic muppet, who's far too worried about building his legacy than he is about doing his !@#$ing job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 Bush was better than Obama. Bush was a congenital moron, but he was a congenital moron who knew how to lead. Obama's just a narcissistic muppet, who's far too worried about building his legacy than he is about doing his !@#$ing job. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! You are such a total duchebag! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Bush was better than Obama. Bush was a congenital moron, but he was a congenital moron who knew how to lead. Obama's just a narcissistic muppet, who's far too worried about building his legacy than he is about doing his !@#$ing job. I just read Woodward's Obama's Wars. I don't recommend it but I'd forgotten that horrible first couple yers of his presidency when he had no control over the generals and everyone was end running him to the media. Few people are "ready" to be president, but there can't have been as many people as ill-prepared as Obama was. His PR machine is much better now but back then, it was a leak a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Democrats are bad! Why don't you read the article and do what I suggested in Post #68? What are you afraid of, learning something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) I just read Woodward's Obama's Wars. I don't recommend it but I'd forgotten that horrible first couple yers of his presidency when he had no control over the generals and everyone was end running him to the media. Few people are "ready" to be president, but there can't have been as many people as ill-prepared as Obama was. His PR machine is much better now but back then, it was a leak a week. Bush's first few years weren't much better (Ashcroft and Rumsfeld drove me nuts with that. Rumsfeld in particular, making statements that were rightfully in Powell's purview.) The primary difference being that Bush gave his deputies too much scope in their jobs; Obama just doesn't seem to give his any direction. Edited April 11, 2014 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 ...miss me yet? practically forgotten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinES3 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! You are such a total duchebag! "Am I wrong?" "No Walter, you're not wrong. You're just an !@#$!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Democrats and Republicans alike are BAD. neither side is perfect. the worst party is the party that wants you to convert to their way of thinking or else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinES3 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Bush was better than Obama. Bush was a congenital moron, but he was a congenital moron who knew how to lead. Obama's just a narcissistic muppet, who's far too worried about building his legacy than he is about doing his !@#$ing job. Honestly, I've never heard it put more succinctly. Democrats and Republicans alike are BAD. neither side is perfect. the worst party is the party that wants you to convert to their way of thinking or else. Exactly, and one party is especially adept at accusing those that disagree of being intolerant. Forced tolerance is a curious proposition at best... Eg... You're in favor of traditional marriage? You're a bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 practically forgotten Is it that time of the month for you that you need to come down here and get the usual ass whipping? I never could quite understand the S&M crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 I just read Woodward's Obama's Wars. I don't recommend it but I'd forgotten that horrible first couple yers of his presidency when he had no control over the generals and everyone was end running him to the media. Few people are "ready" to be president, but there can't have been as many people as ill-prepared as Obama was. His PR machine is much better now but back then, it was a leak a week. Compared to what Bush did to the military what Obama did was nothing. Bush did a great job using the military as a prop--Mission accomplished! Of course he got his guidance from Jesus...and Cheney Cheney obviously saw Bush as a weak leader and stepped in to dominate him Why don't you read the article and do what I suggested in Post #68? What are you afraid of, learning something? The one by Karl Rove? Are you seriously that stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts