quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

We're still paying for Eisenhower's fuckups in the region.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

We're still paying for Eisenhower's fuckups in the region.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Since when did being the "wife of" a politician become a personal accomplishment again? That is so. . . sexist. Belittling to women.

What year is this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

1) I am not aware of any banking scheme initiated by Carter (Carter....Volker....18% interest rates...not Carters doing but...in his reign), Clinton (ACORN/loans for everyone....no more redlining due to locations simply not paying their bills..."everyone deserves a mortgage"), and Barney Frank (well....he...uhm....kind of altered the entire banking system in 2009 via Dodd/Frank). I am aware of Barney Frank's meddling in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the standard for mortgages they would purchase (Actually...Frank didn't have any effect whatsoever on the leniency in banking or mortgage funding....well...other than the fact that he was on their board of directors and did have some influence.....okay....a lot...that was Clinton....see above....ACORN). Please enlighten me. I always want to learn. And you should end your days teaching.

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

Because he reigned over a period when computers, which had gained traction in 2001, with new programs (Visicalc...the precursor to Excel and Lotus 1--2-3) that enabled people to finally do something other than play asteroids......

3) I also ask you to consider Phil Gramm's masterpiece: Gramm-Leach-Billey Act which repealed the important parts of Glass-Steagall and ensured we would have "too big to fail"....HUUUUUGE mistake.. By the way...Gramm's a total politician and....a putz.

4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards (which, by the way, he had zero to do with), and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all (also not done my Frank or Graham....voted in favor of by both but neither had anything to do with the legislation), both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. (True) Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with (he....meaning "Bush"....who had 27 rejections of Presidential Veto's during his Presidency....and held a Republican majority,in both the Senate and the House...and largely held sway). He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spreeand , (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect (Ahhhh....well, now you're on to something valid). Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation (and 6-tupling the debt), Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year (You're on crack....I'm sure of it...Bush One added 3 trillion to the debt....a guy you say had no authority). (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. R

The debt ceiling....it can be raised...occasionally it needs to be raised but...like Ron Paul once said when asked "how will you deal with the current debt?"He answered quite succinctly: "Pretty simple stuff....you get what you got last year until we take in more than we spend....after 3 more years....you get a raise at 1/2 the new income".

Sounds like a fairly simple solution to me.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

You see, that's the point. You don't come on here and say I disagree with you because of X. You come on and condescend to someone making a point. I've stated on here more than once, I treat people like they treat other people. Generally the leftists on here are shocked. They tend to be used to dishing it out but not taking it. Generally, because in public they can get away with it and make a claim to the boss if someone responds. You're first posts on here were pure condescending drivel made from DNC talking points. I responded in kind.

Now, in your post above you mentioned you encouraged everyone to do their own research. Well, if you don't know this stuff by now, I encourage you to do as much research as you need. It seems obvious to me that you limit your news to sources that feed you things you want to hear. Perhaps you should widen your experience.

To recap:

1) You directly attack me
2) You disparage me in several posts
(But you treat people like they treat other people?)
3) You label my first posts as "pure condescending drivel made from DNC talking points."
4) And then there is this gem: "It seems obvious to me that you limit your news to sources that feed you things you want to hear. Perhaps you should widen your experience."
5) You have not factually refuted a single point I made. Not one.
6) I show some humility, by asking for more information from you on a SINGLE point (legislation passed under the Carter Admin)
7) Your response is: "Well, if you don't know this stuff by now..."

But *I* am the one who is condescending?


My point about the failed economy being a legacy of the Bush Admin is quite valid for the following reasons:

1) Bush doubled down on the failed Clinton/Frank policy
2) Spent billions on a Medicare Part D, and an invasion of Iraq. Neither were stimulative to the economy
3) Failed to repair Glass-Steagall, after it was torn apart by Phil Gramm


Ohh...

And yes, I will take your advice and do all the research I need.


Be well

Let's add to the recap.
0) you were a condescending SOB.
0.5) it's not my job to educate you, especially when you come on here a know it all. (Please see first thread I encountered you)

You seem to think above that you're the aggrieved person. You're not. You were the SOB. I called you on it. I don't care a fig if you showed humility. From my perspective it could just be more condescension. You were offensive, I called you in it in the same tone you used, you haven't apologized and here you are trying to turn it on me. Nonsense, you're a condescending idiot.

https://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

We're still paying for Eisenhower's fuckups in the region.

Whuuuuuu????????

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

We're still paying for Eisenhower's fuckups in the region.

Whuuuuuu????????

http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/me070909b.htm

Three major events marked Dwight Eisenhower’s Middle East policy. In 1953, Eisenhower ordered the CIA to depose Mohammed Mossadegh, the popular, elected leader of the Iranian parliament and an ardent nationalist who opposed British and American influence in Iran. The coup severely tarnished America’s reputation among Iranians, who lost trust in American claims of protecting democracy.

In 1956, when Israel, Britain and France attacked Egypt when Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, a furious Eisenhower not only refused to join the hostilities; he ended the war.

Two years later, as nationalist forces roiled the Middle East and threatened to topple Lebanon’s Christian-led government, Eisenhower ordered the first landing of U.S. troops in Beirut to protect the regime. The deployment, lasting just three months, ended a brief civil war in Lebanon.

quote:

Washington (CNN)More people have an unfavorable view of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton now than at any time since 2001, according to a new CNN/ORC poll on the 2016 race.

While Clinton remains strikingly dominant in the Democratic field, the poll shows that her numbers have dropped significantly across several key indicators since she launched her campaign in April.

A growing number of people say she is not honest and trustworthy (57%, up from 49% in March), less than half feel she cares about people like them (47%, down from 53% last July) and more now feel she does not inspire confidence (50%, up from 42% last March).

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Then Eisenhower is in the same boat as every foreign leader since the Khanites were driven from the area.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Then Eisenhower is in the same boat as every foreign leader since the Khanites were driven from the area.

With the exception of a young Saddam Hussein going on CIA payroll in 1959.

Probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

With the exception of a young Saddam Hussein going on CIA payroll in 1959.

Probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

With the exception of a young Saddam Hussein going on CIA payroll in 1959.

Probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

Which is why a LOT of people (Hillary, John Kerry, a veritable plethora of democrats) supported going into Iraq in '03 (I feel old. I said "aught-three" in my head, as I was typing that); because we caused the issue. It was our fucking mess to clean up.

Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

How was it ours. The British literally created Iraq, Saddam was on the Egyptians payroll

The CIA was surprised when the successful coup occurred in 1963... The Baathists acted according to their own agenda... And the Soviets forced everyons' hand on the issue

We were involved, yes. But the notion that somehow we owned Iraq is misinformation and lies

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
We saddled up that horse. No matter what else was going on, we helped to ensure that Saddam would rise to power because he was our kind of son-of-a-bitch (at the time, anyway).

We'd better own that because it was our shit.
Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Theres no truth to that. Even if that were true (which in some cases things like that did happen), the USSR was a far bigger threat at the time, forcing us to ally with unsavory characters around the globe for the sake of survival

It was like a deadly chess match, or a real game of Risk in many ways. If we didnt have a particular nation under our wing, chances were good that they would end up as another in a long series of brutally controlled Soviet-sponsored slave states

Perhaps the Realpolitic of it all wasnt attractive but the alternative was much worse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Your link doesnt exactly support your assertion. It clearly states Saddam was getting some of his money from the CIA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

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.

So you have nothing to say for Hillary except that she isn't Bush, who in case you haven't noticed isn't running. That and the ridiculous notion that all Republicans think alike. I guess that means that all Dems have gay escort services running out of their homes since Barney Frank did. I'm not saying that but if I used what you pass for logic I would have to.