Obama Sucked Tonight
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
canndo
Well-Known Member
Ehhhhhhh, I don't think so. the wealty may help but they aren't going to get us out of this, only a booming economy presided over by Dems will.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Extraordinarily well put bedspirit. I have seen this before, where someone on the right has been affixed to an alternate reality so thouroughly (well everyone knows - well it is a common fact, or my favorite [statement statement statement.... DUH]) that the are confident an article will reflect that alternate reality, so confident that they don't read it.
It is, however, extremely difficult if not generaly impossible for these folks to be able to respond - it is impossible for them to seriously alter their reality back to one that roughly conforms to the objective. I have stated that there are volumes of sociologica and psychological studies that indicate that the more intelligent a conservative is, the more he will cling to his beliefs in the face of the truth.
In short - They Can't Do It.
We can even discuss their behavior in front of them - in person, believe it or not - and they are incapable of interceeding, perhaps of even seeing the words on the screen or hearing them. There are the few however, who will dismiss them with "it is all bullshit" or personal invectives, but never a cogent response to the observations made. Even something this blatant will not alter their behavior, not even temporarily.
It never ever fails to fascinate me.
canndo
Well-Known Member
What makes a "good speech"? the emotions it evokes? Inspiration? the information it imparts? The oratory itself? What if the speech was moving and eloquent but it was filled with outright lies? (not exagerations for effect)?
In the opinion of many, The Gettysburg address was the best Amercian speech ever delivered and it had very little information but a hell of a lot of inspiration. Shall we measure that against Clinton's frank talk? Because some of us are wonks, we were engrossed in Clinton's ability to make plain, the statements we often attempt to make on this board. He did so for the non-wonk and I thought he did an enchanting job.
Obama?
he started off slow and weak in my opinion, he attacked his opponent and I feared he was on his way to making just another stump speech, but he pulled it out of the gutter only when he spoke to the best nature in us all, only when he inspired us as Americans and not as partisans.
I didn't hear Romney do that and I wanted him to.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
if you wanna suck a dick, suck the speech-writer's dick.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
SERIOUSLY...when the fuck will the speech writer get credit?
canndo
Well-Known Member
You don't think that the speaker had any influence on the writing? and furthermore, half of any speech is how it is delivered. Give me the best speech ever written and put me in front of all those people and you will hear the worst speech of your life.
ink the world
Well-Known Member
Yeah, it has NOTHING at all to do with poor and predatory lending practices.
Those banks and mortgage companies built their little system
of bullshit. Yep, we'll give you an interest only mortgage because, ya know real estate values never drop. They built a system that couldn't survive when the bubble burst.
The consumer as well as the lender are to blame here.
bedspirit
Active Member
I think Clinton actually has some responsibility in the subprime mortgage crisis for the reason that althor mentioned: the repeal of Glass Steagall. Also I think that Greenspan and Clinton deregulated the derivative market.
I know the CRA had nothing to do with it.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Beenthere was fed and ate the lies about the CRA
nontheist
Well-Known Member
So your saying, that a pressuring banks to invest money in inner-city area's and Clinton repealing safety nets had nothing to do with the housing bubble? Funny, Clinton marveled how well CRA exploded under him, 85% increase he said. Now CRA isn't fully to blame, but is part of the bubble. The little Glass-Steagall act was a fucking train wreck on top, this bullshit about Bush causing this problem is getting old, when it was liberal acts that got us in this fucking mess and every way you look at it, you have Barny Franks hand in the shit. I also assume Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with this also correct? We don't to point directly at the problem do we? It looks a bit liberal when you do.
nontheist
Well-Known Member
You have become an idiot Canndo, thinking CRA had nothing to do with the housing bubble.
BA142
Well-Known Member
It was a fake economic boom....everything was fine and dandy till the housing bubble burst. Dems and Republicans are both to blame.
We should fight together, not against each other. The two party system is destroying progress
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
LOL!! Not the 2 party system but the overarching buracracy that grows in spite of what every country has ever tried to do to beat it back.
The constitution is a document specifically limiting the power of the federal government. I dont know how much clearer they could be by stating categorically that any powers not specifically enumerated in the constitution were left to the states. Somehow, lawyers, lobbiests and politicians have managed to interpret one clause in the constitution to somehow negate that function and through the trade clause allow the federal government to run our lives, run up hundreds of thousands of dollars per debt for each household and throw us off a fiscal cliff we have no way of recovering from.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
only one problem, socky mcsockdouchefistuptheass.
shrub bragged about home ownership. he bragged about it in his SOTu addresses. he bragged about it to get reelection. his republican controlled congress in both houses did nothing.
yet you posit this retarded theory that barney frank single-handedly controlled congress for 6 years from his position in the minority.
get the fuck out of here sock puppet.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
funny how you now want to talk about the constitution. you shat all over that thing in the debates about arizona's unconstitutional laws and PA's unconstitutional poll tax.
nice attempt at spelling bureaucracy though. stick to pushing lawnmowers.
bedspirit
Active Member
All I'm saying is the CRA had nothing to do with it. Even your own link says that. No bank made a single bad loan because of the CRA. As your link pointed out, only 20% of the institutions that gave out the loans were fully regulated by the CRA. 30% were partially regulated by it and 50% were completely exempt from it. There just aren't any numbers supporting the theory that the CRA played a part.
I don't blame Bush for it. His administration can be accused of inaction, but I'm not aware of any legislation that ties him to it. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd did have an impact. We agree on that. Fannie and Freddie were allowed to be leveraged to some crazy amount. I think that happened under Clinton. You can't put all the blame on Fannie and Freddie though. They only held 30% of the subprime loans, but certainly they played a part. I don't think they were involved in the bundling derivative scheme though.
We both agree that you can put some serious blame on the government. But putting all the blame on the government is to ignore a lot of reckless behavior on Wall Street. Specifically the collusion with the ratings agencies and defrauding their clients by betting against the investments they sold them.
bedspirit
Active Member
Even your own link supports him!