Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

That doesn't make it alright.

Of course not. That wasn't the point. The point was that a) gatorman is a mental midget, and b) that both major party choices were horrendous, and Clinton supporters are wildly hypocritical in their criticism of Trump over this issue.

Posted

You can update to me on the DoJ actions, when you get back from the Beer Summit, reminding us all on why you didn't build that, while you're clinging to your guns & religion.

 

Stupid comments that defined a Presidency are about to go into hyperdrive.

 

Maybe. Will they mean anything? Time will tell.

Posted

I see. The buck no longer stops where it used to

What could Bush have done to prevent the GR?

 

Seriously, given time lines, and what was (not) known about the bloated housing bubble at the time, what could he have done?

 

Go.

Posted

I see. The buck no longer stops where it used to.

 

Clinton wasn't at fault for the dot-com bubble, either.

 

Some times - most times - the economy does whatever it damn well pleases.

Posted

I see. The buck no longer stops where it used to.

 

Taking responsibility and being responsible are two different things. So having said that I will ask again and again politely. Please explain, in detail, how Bush was responsible for the Great Recession.

Posted (edited)

Taking responsibility and being responsible are two different things. So having said that I will ask again and again politely. Please explain, in detail, how Bush was responsible for the Great Recession.

 

Bush's love for easy monetary policy and his lust for power (getting re elected).

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/14/greed_destroyed_us_all_george_w_bush_and_the_real_story_of_the_great_recession/

 

The Fed kept interest rates low for two reasons. First, employment had recovered more slowly than expected from the 2001 recession, the so-called jobless recovery, indicating that a more prolonged period of lower interest rates was needed to stimulate the economy. Second, Fed policy makers were concerned that the country might fall into a Japanese-style lost decade if they did not make a clear and convincing case through bold actions that low interest rates would persist as long as required to boost the economy. A less charitable view holds that Fed chairman Alan Greenspans motives were less economic and more ideological and self-servingsupporting easy monetary policy to increase the re-election prospects of fellow Republican George W. Bush, who was locked in a tight re-election race, or to curry favor with the administration so that he would be reappointed Fed chairman when his term expired after the presidential election. And, in fact, President Bush did nominate Greenspan for an unprecedented fifth term inMay 2005. Whatever the reason for the prolonged monetary easing, it was crucial to the development of the boom.

 

Edited by reddogblitz
Posted

Bush's love for easy monetary policy and his lust for power (getting re elected).

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/14/greed_destroyed_us_all_george_w_bush_and_the_real_story_of_the_great_recession/

 

 

It would be an oversimplification to place the blame for the subprime crisis solely on ill-conceived fiscal and monetary policies.

 

Same article.

 

And going to Salon for an unbiased and accurate view of the Bush administration is like going to Rush Limbaugh for an unbiased and accurate view of the Clinton administration.

Posted

She went much further than simply calling for it, she authored and presented legislation seeking it.

Lawyers dodge. Her bill was obviously a move to preempt a bill that was actually trying to punish flag burning. Her bill specifically called for punishment if the burning was designed to incite violence. So, probably never punish anyone

So Hillary, the national vote winner, was trying to defuse the issue, while Trump was trying to incite it. Big difference. You false equivalence Trump protectors--even though you hate him, ya right--can't see that though.

Posted

Lawyers dodge. Her bill was obviously a move to preempt a bill that was actually trying to punish flag burning. Her bill specifically called for punishment if the burning was designed to incite violence. So, probably never punish anyone

So Hillary, the national vote winner, was trying to defuse the issue, while Trump was trying to incite it. Big difference. You false equivalence Trump protectors--even though you hate him, ya right--can't see that though.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202155.html

 

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that she would "support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses..."

 

No, she was actually trying to punish flag burning.

Posted

Lawyers dodge. Her bill was obviously a move to preempt a bill that was actually trying to punish flag burning. Her bill specifically called for punishment if the burning was designed to incite violence. So, probably never punish anyone

So Hillary, the national vote winner, was trying to defuse the issue, while Trump was trying to incite it. Big difference. You false equivalence Trump protectors--even though you hate him, ya right--can't see that though.

 

She won the national vote thanks to California. And Trump is trying to incite people...to stop burning the flag? LOL!

Is that like inciting people to commit murder...by punishing it?

Posted (edited)

Lawyers dodge. Her bill was obviously a move to preempt a bill that was actually trying to punish flag burning. Her bill specifically called for punishment if the burning was designed to incite violence. So, probably never punish anyone

So Hillary, the national vote winner, was trying to defuse the issue, while Trump was trying to incite it. Big difference. You false equivalence Trump protectors--even though you hate him, ya right--can't see that though.

 

 

You're nuts....in complete denial. Grasping for straws that aren't there anymore. It's scary.

Edited by HoF Watkins
×
×
  • Create New...