Obama Sucked Tonight

canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
bedspirit said:
In case you didn't notice, I quoted the text from this link on pg 10 of this thread that shows that even your own link proves how wrong you are about this.

This tells me something very important about partisan hacks like you and beenthere. It tells me that you actually believe the propaganda you've been fed, but you're so thoroughly brainwashed by that propaganda that you didn't even bother reading the Wikipedia article you linked to because you were sure it would prove you right.

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican and I shit on both sides when they're wrong. It's trickier with Democrats because there always seems to be a sliver of truth to their lies. With Republicans, it's much simpler, at least these days. They lie about what the Constitution says, they lie about who the founders were, and they lie about laws and regulations that have been passed. Every time I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you guys have been misled, I never get a response. Not from hard core Republicans.

I keep waiting for that day. The day that one of you guys come to the realization that you've been a pawn to advance someone else's agenda. When you decide that you won't be an agent of disinfo to fill someone else's pockets. But that day never comes. You guys just keep on posting your nonsense with conviction hoping to brainwash some other poor guy who's too lazy to read up.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ringsixty

Ringsixty

Well-Known Member
Obama speech was pretty good.
If your a Democratic, it was the greatest thing since slice bread.
If your a Republican the speech sucked.

For me, as an Independent. The speech was just another speech full of empty promises and more bad policies to come.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
bedspirit said:
Obama has never been skilled at that. the whole "You didn't build this" thing came from Obama trying to be Elizabeth Warren. Though, I think the only way his speech could be considered weak is by comparing it to Clinton. It was still a much better speech than anything we saw from the RNC. My wife is a lifetime Republican who never voted for a Democrat in her life, and she was persuaded by his speech to vote Obama this time.
Click to expand...

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.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
if you wanna suck a dick, suck the speech-writer's dick.
Click to expand...
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

ink the world

Well-Known Member
nontheist said:
Fuck Clinton, between him and Carter's "Community Reinvestment Act" AKA give subprime mortgages and credit to people that can't afford it is a huge fucking reason the economy is in a mess.
Click to expand...
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

bedspirit

Active Member
beenthere said:
For the record, are you claiming the CRA, President Clinton who signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or rewrote parts of the CRA had nothing to do with the sub-prime mortgage crisis?
Click to expand...
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

canndo

Well-Known Member
bedspirit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Beenthere was fed and ate the lies about the CRA
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
bedspirit said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BA142

BA142

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
So could one make the argument Bill Clinton just signed republican bills into law, therefore the economy boomed because of who wrote the bills rather than who signed them?
Click to expand...
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

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
BA142 said:
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
Click to expand...
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

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
nontheist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

bedspirit

Active Member
nontheist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top