quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

I did indeed feel sorry for Hilary Clinton during the Lewinsky years. She was bashed mercilessly by the Republicans, suffered through the humiliation of Bill's affairs, and then bashed mercilessly all over again.

My own belief. She is a good person, caught up in the hype of her own celebrity. She actually feels that it is "her turn" to be President. I question her leadership ability. Additionally, the fact that she conducted official government business on a personal email server, erodes any possibility of me trusting her. I don't hate her. I just wish she would retire on her and Bill's millions, and stay out of politics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

I did indeed feel sorry for Hilary Clinton during the Lewinsky years. She was bashed mercilessly by the Republicans, suffered through the humiliation of Bill's affairs, and then bashed mercilessly all over again.

My own belief. She is a good person, caught up in the hype of her own celebrity. She actually feels that it is "her turn" to be President. I question her leadership ability. Additionally, the fact that she conducted official government business on a personal email server, erodes any possibility of me trusting her. I don't hate her. I just wish she would retire on her and Bill's millions, and stay out of politics.

that's the thing.. she didnt have to suffer thru the humiliation of Bills affairs, she could have walked away any time she wanted to and if she wanted to be in politics she should have done that back then instead of being wishy washy and showing people that the power of her position was more important to her than the humiliation etc she suffered.. In other words, she could have been a real woman and kicked the slimeball to the curb and moved feminism forward by showing what strong principled women do, instead, she set feminism back.. And, I seriously doubt that he would have ever become Prez without her, he needed her more than she needed him.. he was too busy getting his dick wet to do that on his own..

I dont trust her either, of all the politicians, she is the worst imo.. i think with her as the next Prez, the govt will become even more gridlocked and vicious.. imo, its gonna be an even bigger mess.. the 99% will suffer as a result.. When she is Prez, I hope my country & other countries will tell her to F off..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

1) Bush doubled down on the failed Clinton/Frank policy

Wrong

quote:

Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. That's a whole lot of toxic waste. For more detail, consult the items referred to in my previous blogpost on this subject (most of the comments seem to have been disputes about the plot line of the movie It's a Wonderful Life, which I should think could be settled by consulting a reference work). ..

... Don't the American people deserve to know that Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, " I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"? Isn't the fact that the ranking Democrat in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae was in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive a glaring conflict of interest? Isn't it worth noting that Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters insisted, "we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines"? Shouldn't the American people know that Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks insist that "there's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong with Fannie Mae"?

If nothing else, shouldn't we salute Democratic Rep. Artur Davis for saying, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

Iraq was a bipartisan adventure, too. Most Dems were totally on board

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards, and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all, both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with. He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree, (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect. Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation, Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year. (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Rubio?)

Congress rubber-stamped whatever Bush wanted? Really?

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

How is it that Bush brought up reforming Fannie and Freddie many, many times, but it was never done?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards, and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all, both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with. He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree, (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect. Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation, Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year. (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Rubio?)

Congress rubber-stamped whatever Bush wanted? Really?

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

How is it that Bush brought up reforming Fannie and Freddie many, many times, but it was never done?

Conspicuous by its absence was ANY repub calling for reform of wall street (banks) or the SEC or any regulatory mechanisms to prevent the meltdown that put Fannie & Freddie's risk to...pale in comparison. The very act of modifying Glass-Steagall was what led to the corruption and was antithesis of reform.

Fannie & Freddie had nothing whatever to do with the meltdown. It was wall street and WAMU and a few other large mortgage cos. that created shit paper mortgages and created (bundled) a whole new piece if paper to sell, (MBS's) given a corrupt AAA rating by a corrupt rating agency all allowed by a corrupt SEC all of which paid off very, very well without anybody going to jail for their fraud or getting fired for their malfeasance.

Freddie & Fannie went way outside their normal lending ratios and borrowing policies because they too...were mananged by greedy capitalist scum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??

Isn't keeping the Neocons out of the office ample reason on its own? I'm afraid that, like you, I don't rate Hilary very highly, but she would be better than any of the current GOP hopefuls. It would be a case of Hilary first and daylight second IMHO.

Recall what a disaster the last neocon POTUS was for the US and the world. It has taken years for the US to recover from W's mistakes and even longer for the rest of the world. Indeed, it's true to point that significant portions of both the USA and the rest of the world are still recovering. It doesn't look as though the process will be completed any time soon - Iraq anybody?.

No sane person anywhere, except perhaps some of the more ideologically blinkered right-wingers in the US*, wants a repeat of W's disasters.


* Of course, many people would quite reasonably assert that the 'no sane person' qualification automatically excludes the US's far right wingers.

No need to recall the disaster of a Neocon administration:

We're STILL living it:

1) Still digging out of this economic hole
2) Still paying for Medicare Part D
3) Dealing with a far more powerful Iran
4) Dealing with a far more armed North Korea! (can't forget that from the first term)

Some of the highlights of their legacy.


As Hunter so eloquently pointed out in another thread.... Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. As for me, I have NO party loyalty. I would vote for ANYONE who:

1) Understands the issues we face
2) Has a solid plan to resolve them

My post was not really about who is the lesser of two evils (yes, I agree, Hilary would be FAR less worse (double negative intended) than anyone on the Republican side.

I was genuinely trying to gain an understanding of what people feel Hilary has the ability to accomplish. Not much, it seems (other than keeping Neocons out).


I would actually consider voting for Rand Paul. (if he won the Republican nomination, which we all know he has no chance of accomplishing.)

Oh yes, I know that Obama, Read and Polosi sold the bad Bush economy line for the 2008 election. I know the semiliterate who all voted democrat bought it.

But you, in all of your splended knowledge really know that Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks really initiated the banking scheme and the Clinton had Janet Reno threaten the banks to go along. You also know that afterward all of Clinton's co-conspirators then went to work for Fanny and Fready to make millions. Jamie Gorilick being one. So you know in all of your passive aggressive BS that the economy that Clinton establish just came to fruition under Bush and he's just a handy fall guy. Since you're so sophisticated, you know all of that don't you.

You also know that Iran became they way they are under Carter and Obama's "progressive" posture has just made them worse. You know North Korea has always been there and it's neive, at best, to blame Bush for that seven years after he's been gone.

So, really, in your sophistication you know you're full of BS don't you?

1) I am not aware of any banking scheme initiated by Carter, Clinton, and Barney Frank. I am aware of Barney Frank's meddling in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the standard for mortgages they would purchase. Please enlighten me. I always want to learn.

2) I loved the economy, under Clinton. Those were the happiest times for myself and my family.

3) I also ask you to consider Phil Gramm's masterpiece: Gramm-Leach-Billey Act which repealed the important parts of Glass-Steagall and ensured we would have "too big to fail"

4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards, and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all, both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with. He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree, (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect. Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation, Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year. (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Rubio?)

5) Iran has been "the way they are" since we installed the Shah there. They have become a nuclear threat, largely because a famous Neocon sold them nuclear technology, and developed their Arak reactor. (As well as developing several oil refineries, to aid in their bypassing of U.S. sanctions). ALL, while sanctions at the time prohibited U.S. business from doing business with Iran). Let's also not forget the Iraq invasion, which diverted billions from Iran's expenditures into defending itself from Iraq (RIGHT into their Nuclear program). The Neocon gifts to Iran keep on giving to this day.

5) RE: North Korea. Clinton had negotiated a deal with North Korea that included the IAEA, Japanese, and South Korean inspectors. North Korea, had NO significant nuclear capability at the time. Fast forward to Bush, who trashed the agreement.
The Bush administration realized it had made a HUGE foreign policy blunder, (of course this was minor in comparison to the many blunders to follow) tried desperately to renegotiate a new agreement, offering far more concessions than Clinton did. With no inspections, and basically no way to sanction North Korea more than they currently are, and no more fuel oil coming in , North Korea had the green light to continue to where they are now. The Neocon gifts to North Korea keep on giving to this day.

Even IF, as the neocons claim, North Korea was cheating on the Plutonium deal, and secretly enriching Uranium, the IAEA inspectors would have most certainly caught it. But, of course, they were expelled from the country.

I find it hugely amusing that liberals, in the seventh year of Obama's presidency, still blame Bush for the economy but still believe the Clinton years were a result of Clinton rather than 16 years of Reagan and Bush. As you'll recall, toward the end of Clinton's years the economy began to go to shit and GW had to deal with it.


You probably don't recall, because it would require a fair and balanced opinion, that both Bush and McCain went to congress and asked the to change Clintons's/Carters terrible legislation. Rush Limbaugh still plays tapes of it. With Barney Frank saying there were no problems and they were going to change nothing.

You might even remember Clinton's op Ed in the NYT after the shit hit the fan saying, well yes these were different times and when he did what he did it was reasonable but in these different times congress should have changed his laws.

So basically, none of what you've said above is true. All of it is BS in which you proudly believe.

Barney Frank didn't go to Freedy and Fannie and change things. Clinton and Carter did. They believed the banks should stop, what is politically correct, called redlining. In other words they should lend to poor people who weren't credit worthy. Carter initialized the law and Clinton put teeth in it. They changed the standards for how a person was determined to be credit worthy. When the banks decided that they didn't want to be involved in that funny business with their money, Clinton had the Janet Reno Justice Dept. Write them and tell them if they didn't mske 40% of their loans per the new rules the Justice Dept. Would sue. Then Clinton relaxed the rules at Freddie and Fannie so the bad dept incurred could be bundled and sold. The fact that Barney Franks was living with the president of, which ever you look it up, Fannie or Freddie just greased the skids. After the big banks succumbed to Janet Reno, predators like Country Wide entered into the business.

If you don't know any of the above, you really have no business making any accusation about any part of the economy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards, and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all, both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with. He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree, (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect. Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation, Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year. (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Rubio?)

Congress rubber-stamped whatever Bush wanted? Really?

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

How is it that Bush brought up reforming Fannie and Freddie many, many times, but it was never done?

Conspicuous by its absence was ANY repub calling for reform of wall street (banks) or the SEC or any regulatory mechanisms to prevent the meltdown that put Fannie & Freddie's risk to...pale in comparison. The very act of modifying Glass-Steagall was what led to the corruption and was antithesis of reform.

Fannie & Freddie had nothing whatever to do with the meltdown. It was wall street and WAMU and a few other large mortgage cos. that created shit paper mortgages and created (bundled) a whole new piece if paper to sell, (MBS's) given a corrupt AAA rating by a corrupt rating agency all allowed by a corrupt SEC all of which paid off very, very well without anybody going to jail for their fraud or getting fired for their malfeasance.

Freddie & Fannie went way outside their normal lending ratios and borrowing policies because they too...were mananged by greedy capitalist scum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??

Isn't keeping the Neocons out of the office ample reason on its own? I'm afraid that, like you, I don't rate Hilary very highly, but she would be better than any of the current GOP hopefuls. It would be a case of Hilary first and daylight second IMHO.

Recall what a disaster the last neocon POTUS was for the US and the world. It has taken years for the US to recover from W's mistakes and even longer for the rest of the world. Indeed, it's true to point that significant portions of both the USA and the rest of the world are still recovering. It doesn't look as though the process will be completed any time soon - Iraq anybody?.

No sane person anywhere, except perhaps some of the more ideologically blinkered right-wingers in the US*, wants a repeat of W's disasters.


* Of course, many people would quite reasonably assert that the 'no sane person' qualification automatically excludes the US's far right wingers.

No need to recall the disaster of a Neocon administration:

We're STILL living it:

1) Still digging out of this economic hole
2) Still paying for Medicare Part D
3) Dealing with a far more powerful Iran
4) Dealing with a far more armed North Korea! (can't forget that from the first term)

Some of the highlights of their legacy.


As Hunter so eloquently pointed out in another thread.... Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. As for me, I have NO party loyalty. I would vote for ANYONE who:

1) Understands the issues we face
2) Has a solid plan to resolve them

My post was not really about who is the lesser of two evils (yes, I agree, Hilary would be FAR less worse (double negative intended) than anyone on the Republican side.

I was genuinely trying to gain an understanding of what people feel Hilary has the ability to accomplish. Not much, it seems (other than keeping Neocons out).


I would actually consider voting for Rand Paul. (if he won the Republican nomination, which we all know he has no chance of accomplishing.)

Oh yes, I know that Obama, Read and Polosi sold the bad Bush economy line for the 2008 election. I know the semiliterate who all voted democrat bought it.

But you, in all of your splended knowledge really know that Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks really initiated the banking scheme and the Clinton had Janet Reno threaten the banks to go along. You also know that afterward all of Clinton's co-conspirators then went to work for Fanny and Fready to make millions. Jamie Gorilick being one. So you know in all of your passive aggressive BS that the economy that Clinton establish just came to fruition under Bush and he's just a handy fall guy. Since you're so sophisticated, you know all of that don't you.

You also know that Iran became they way they are under Carter and Obama's "progressive" posture has just made them worse. You know North Korea has always been there and it's neive, at best, to blame Bush for that seven years after he's been gone.

So, really, in your sophistication you know you're full of BS don't you?

1) I am not aware of any banking scheme initiated by Carter, Clinton, and Barney Frank. I am aware of Barney Frank's meddling in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the standard for mortgages they would purchase. Please enlighten me. I always want to learn.

2) I loved the economy, under Clinton. Those were the happiest times for myself and my family.

3) I also ask you to consider Phil Gramm's masterpiece: Gramm-Leach-Billey Act which repealed the important parts of Glass-Steagall and ensured we would have "too big to fail"

4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards, and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all, both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with. He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree, (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect. Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation, Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year. (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Rubio?)

5) Iran has been "the way they are" since we installed the Shah there. They have become a nuclear threat, largely because a famous Neocon sold them nuclear technology, and developed their Arak reactor. (As well as developing several oil refineries, to aid in their bypassing of U.S. sanctions). ALL, while sanctions at the time prohibited U.S. business from doing business with Iran). Let's also not forget the Iraq invasion, which diverted billions from Iran's expenditures into defending itself from Iraq (RIGHT into their Nuclear program). The Neocon gifts to Iran keep on giving to this day.

5) RE: North Korea. Clinton had negotiated a deal with North Korea that included the IAEA, Japanese, and South Korean inspectors. North Korea, had NO significant nuclear capability at the time. Fast forward to Bush, who trashed the agreement.
The Bush administration realized it had made a HUGE foreign policy blunder, (of course this was minor in comparison to the many blunders to follow) tried desperately to renegotiate a new agreement, offering far more concessions than Clinton did. With no inspections, and basically no way to sanction North Korea more than they currently are, and no more fuel oil coming in , North Korea had the green light to continue to where they are now. The Neocon gifts to North Korea keep on giving to this day.

Even IF, as the neocons claim, North Korea was cheating on the Plutonium deal, and secretly enriching Uranium, the IAEA inspectors would have most certainly caught it. But, of course, they were expelled from the country.

I find it hugely amusing that liberals, in the seventh year of Obama's presidency, still blame Bush for the economy but still believe the Clinton years were a result of Clinton rather than 16 years of Reagan and Bush. As you'll recall, toward the end of Clinton's years the economy began to go to shit and GW had to deal with it.


You probably don't recall, because it would require a fair and balanced opinion, that both Bush and McCain went to congress and asked the to change Clintons's/Carters terrible legislation. Rush Limbaugh still plays tapes of it. With Barney Frank saying there were no problems and they were going to change nothing.

You might even remember Clinton's op Ed in the NYT after the shit hit the fan saying, well yes these were different times and when he did what he did it was reasonable but in these different times congress should have changed his laws.

So basically, none of what you've said above is true. All of it is BS in which you proudly believe.

Barney Frank didn't go to Freedy and Fannie and change things. Clinton and Carter did. They believed the banks should stop, what is politically correct, called redlining. In other words they should lend to poor people who weren't credit worthy. Carter initialized the law and Clinton put teeth in it. They changed the standards for how a person was determined to be credit worthy. When the banks decided that they didn't want to be involved in that funny business with their money, Clinton had the Janet Reno Justice Dept. Write them and tell them if they didn't mske 40% of their loans per the new rules the Justice Dept. Would sue. Then Clinton relaxed the rules at Freddie and Fannie so the bad dept incurred could be bundled and sold. The fact that Barney Franks was living with the president of, which ever you look it up, Fannie or Freddie just greased the skids. After the big banks succumbed to Janet Reno, predators like Country Wide entered into the business.

If you don't know any of the above, you really have no business making any accusation about any part of the economy.

Jobs created under Clinton with a repub house and requiring a tiebreaker in the senate...22 million.

Jobs created under W with 6 years of repubs in both houses... - (minus) 500,000 (the worst ever by a large margin)

Shall we compare deficits ?

Shall we compare GDP ?

Bush was the worst 2 term and maybe the worst pres,...of all time. Who knew it could a generation to recover ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Jobs created under Clinton with a repub house and requiring a tiebreaker in the senate...22 million.

Even you should know that the "Clinton recovery" was fueled by the .com bubble which was in turn based on fraud. Not only that but it was in free fall when he left office. They caught them during the Bush administration. The Bush economy, on the other hand, fell apart at the end when the Dems controlled both houses and fought everything he tried to do, recession was in their best interest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??

Isn't keeping the Neocons out of the office ample reason on its own? I'm afraid that, like you, I don't rate Hilary very highly, but she would be better than any of the current GOP hopefuls. It would be a case of Hilary first and daylight second IMHO.

Recall what a disaster the last neocon POTUS was for the US and the world. It has taken years for the US to recover from W's mistakes and even longer for the rest of the world. Indeed, it's true to point that significant portions of both the USA and the rest of the world are still recovering. It doesn't look as though the process will be completed any time soon - Iraq anybody?.

No sane person anywhere, except perhaps some of the more ideologically blinkered right-wingers in the US*, wants a repeat of W's disasters.


* Of course, many people would quite reasonably assert that the 'no sane person' qualification automatically excludes the US's far right wingers.

No need to recall the disaster of a Neocon administration:

We're STILL living it:

1) Still digging out of this economic hole
2) Still paying for Medicare Part D
3) Dealing with a far more powerful Iran
4) Dealing with a far more armed North Korea! (can't forget that from the first term)

Some of the highlights of their legacy.


As Hunter so eloquently pointed out in another thread.... Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. As for me, I have NO party loyalty. I would vote for ANYONE who:

1) Understands the issues we face
2) Has a solid plan to resolve them

My post was not really about who is the lesser of two evils (yes, I agree, Hilary would be FAR less worse (double negative intended) than anyone on the Republican side.

I was genuinely trying to gain an understanding of what people feel Hilary has the ability to accomplish. Not much, it seems (other than keeping Neocons out).


I would actually consider voting for Rand Paul. (if he won the Republican nomination, which we all know he has no chance of accomplishing.)

Oh yes, I know that Obama, Read and Polosi sold the bad Bush economy line for the 2008 election. I know the semiliterate who all voted democrat bought it.

But you, in all of your splended knowledge really know that Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks really initiated the banking scheme and the Clinton had Janet Reno threaten the banks to go along. You also know that afterward all of Clinton's co-conspirators then went to work for Fanny and Fready to make millions. Jamie Gorilick being one. So you know in all of your passive aggressive BS that the economy that Clinton establish just came to fruition under Bush and he's just a handy fall guy. Since you're so sophisticated, you know all of that don't you.

You also know that Iran became they way they are under Carter and Obama's "progressive" posture has just made them worse. You know North Korea has always been there and it's neive, at best, to blame Bush for that seven years after he's been gone.

So, really, in your sophistication you know you're full of BS don't you?

1) I am not aware of any banking scheme initiated by Carter, Clinton, and Barney Frank. I am aware of Barney Frank's meddling in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the standard for mortgages they would purchase. Please enlighten me. I always want to learn.

2) I loved the economy, under Clinton. Those were the happiest times for myself and my family.

3) I also ask you to consider Phil Gramm's masterpiece: Gramm-Leach-Billey Act which repealed the important parts of Glass-Steagall and ensured we would have "too big to fail"

4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards, and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all, both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with. He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree, (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect. Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation, Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year. (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Rubio?)

5) Iran has been "the way they are" since we installed the Shah there. They have become a nuclear threat, largely because a famous Neocon sold them nuclear technology, and developed their Arak reactor. (As well as developing several oil refineries, to aid in their bypassing of U.S. sanctions). ALL, while sanctions at the time prohibited U.S. business from doing business with Iran). Let's also not forget the Iraq invasion, which diverted billions from Iran's expenditures into defending itself from Iraq (RIGHT into their Nuclear program). The Neocon gifts to Iran keep on giving to this day.

5) RE: North Korea. Clinton had negotiated a deal with North Korea that included the IAEA, Japanese, and South Korean inspectors. North Korea, had NO significant nuclear capability at the time. Fast forward to Bush, who trashed the agreement.
The Bush administration realized it had made a HUGE foreign policy blunder, (of course this was minor in comparison to the many blunders to follow) tried desperately to renegotiate a new agreement, offering far more concessions than Clinton did. With no inspections, and basically no way to sanction North Korea more than they currently are, and no more fuel oil coming in , North Korea had the green light to continue to where they are now. The Neocon gifts to North Korea keep on giving to this day.

Even IF, as the neocons claim, North Korea was cheating on the Plutonium deal, and secretly enriching Uranium, the IAEA inspectors would have most certainly caught it. But, of course, they were expelled from the country.

I find it hugely amusing that liberals, in the seventh year of Obama's presidency, still blame Bush for the economy but still believe the Clinton years were a result of Clinton rather than 16 years of Reagan and Bush. As you'll recall, toward the end of Clinton's years the economy began to go to shit and GW had to deal with it.


You probably don't recall, because it would require a fair and balanced opinion, that both Bush and McCain went to congress and asked the to change Clintons's/Carters terrible legislation. Rush Limbaugh still plays tapes of it. With Barney Frank saying there were no problems and they were going to change nothing.

You might even remember Clinton's op Ed in the NYT after the shit hit the fan saying, well yes these were different times and when he did what he did it was reasonable but in these different times congress should have changed his laws.

So basically, none of what you've said above is true. All of it is BS in which you proudly believe.

Barney Frank didn't go to Freedy and Fannie and change things. Clinton and Carter did. They believed the banks should stop, what is politically correct, called redlining. In other words they should lend to poor people who weren't credit worthy. Carter initialized the law and Clinton put teeth in it. They changed the standards for how a person was determined to be credit worthy. When the banks decided that they didn't want to be involved in that funny business with their money, Clinton had the Janet Reno Justice Dept. Write them and tell them if they didn't mske 40% of their loans per the new rules the Justice Dept. Would sue. Then Clinton relaxed the rules at Freddie and Fannie so the bad dept incurred could be bundled and sold. The fact that Barney Franks was living with the president of, which ever you look it up, Fannie or Freddie just greased the skids. After the big banks succumbed to Janet Reno, predators like Country Wide entered into the business.

If you don't know any of the above, you really have no business making any accusation about any part of the economy.

Jobs created under Clinton with a repub house and requiring a tiebreaker in the senate...22 million.

Jobs created under W with 6 years of repubs in both houses... - (minus) 500,000 (the worst ever by a large margin)

Shall we compare deficits ?

Shall we compare GDP ?

Bush was the worst 2 term and maybe the worst pres,...of all time. Who knew it could a generation to recover ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

8 Years as First Lady.

Senator of New York

Four Years as Secretary of State

Was a governor's wife before all that.

Will be conducting 2nd POTUS campaign.

Vast experience dealing with slanderous, right wing, attack machine (will be able to ignore the noise)

-------

This puts her light years ahead of all challengers. What's your next question?

Yeah... Standing by her rapist man for all those years should qualify her for the Feminazi vote, at the very least. They do love their leftist predators

And what she did to Iraq and Syria turned out almost as well as Libya and Benghazi.

(Can you say ISIS)


The entire Middle East is on fire after her disasterous stint as Secretary of State

No one more qualified than Hillary, sure

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Because the Middle East had gotten on so well in the last 2000 years.

The Obama administrations' Arab Spring push is being a massive disaster

And guess who was right in the middle of that

Hillary Clinton

**************

So was Obama/Joe Biden and the entire Congress.

Bud...I'm a Republican but some shit just can't be placed on the witch.

I was on I-5 last week 9 cars back when there was a horrific wreck.

(I didn't cause it).