BILL CLINTON
WISH HE COULD RUN AGAIN.
ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
Moderators: Pike Ridge Beagles, Aaron Bartlett
-
Pine Mt Beagles
- Posts: 7803
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: Pineville Ky
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
Rabbithound- I was simply saying that referring to Clinton in regards to a negative post about Romney is no different than when you scrutinize Pine Mtn. for bringing up Bush when Obama is criticized. That is my point. Why is it so hard to understand what I am saying? I am not trying in any way to say anything negative or positive about any candidate here I am just sayin it is kinda like the pot calling the kettle black.
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
Pine Mt Beagles wrote:BILL CLINTON
WISH HE COULD RUN AGAIN.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. "Benjamin Franklin" 1759
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. "Benjamin Franklin" 1759
-
Rabbithoundjb
- Posts: 4517
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:30 pm
- Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
First it was my reply to Big Mike's post now it's PMB's post. Who is it getting off the topic that YOU posted. Again I will ask a simple question that you didn't answer, did Big Mike say Bush outsourced the auto industry. That makes my post relevent to what Big Mike posted. Your post is not at all hard to understand. The difference between PMB and me is simple, did Clinton sign Nafta into law. Did Clinton sign the deregulation of the CRA'S. Did Clinton sign the repeal of the glass/stegall act. The answer to all of those questions is yes. I back up what I post, show me where PMB or Big Mike or you for that matter have posted the legislation that caused what you guys claim Bush did. NOWHERE, I will be waiting for you post that legislation.
I will also be waiting on the measurable improvements that Obama has achieved on this economy since he was elected in Nov.2008
If your gonna challenge me, man up and show me the proof or stop wasting my time. I don't scutinize, I just simply say if you claim it, PROVE IT.
I will also be waiting on the measurable improvements that Obama has achieved on this economy since he was elected in Nov.2008
If your gonna challenge me, man up and show me the proof or stop wasting my time. I don't scutinize, I just simply say if you claim it, PROVE IT.
-
Pine Mt Beagles
- Posts: 7803
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: Pineville Ky
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
RABBITHOUND
YOU KNOW FULL WELL WHAT CAUSED THIS ECONOMIC MELT DOWN,REPUBLICAN ,FAILURE ,THEY JUST CANNOT ,BUT,MOSTLY JUST DON'T --GOVERN.
-
AND ,YOU KNOW THAT WHEN YOU SAY ,BUSH DID NOT SIGN LEGISLATION THAT CAUSED THIS HIGH UN-EMPLOYMENT,,,HE DID NOT HAVE TO .
JUST LIKE HE LIED US IN TO ,A WAR ,BY,MANILUPATING,C.I.A. INFORMATION.AND FLAT OUT LIED AND ,SENT COLIN POWELL TO THE UNITED NATION'S TO LIE.
-
-
WASHINGTON — "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, "scared the hell out of everybody."
It was Sept. 18. Lehman Brothers had just gone belly-up, overwhelmed by toxic mortgages. Bank of America had swallowed Merrill Lynch in a hastily arranged sale. Two days earlier, Bush had agreed to pump $85 billion into the failing insurance giant American International Group.
The president listened as Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, laid out the latest terrifying news: The credit markets, gripped by panic, had frozen overnight, and banks were refusing to lend money.
Then his Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson Jr., told him that to stave off disaster, he would have to sign off on the biggest government bailout in history. Bush, according to several people in the room, paused for a single, stunned moment to take it all in.
"How," he wondered aloud, "did we get here?"
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.
As early as 2006, top advisers to Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn. As recently as February, for example, Bush was still calling it a "rough patch."
The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.
"There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems," said Al Hubbard, Bush's former chief economic adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. "Had we, we would have attacked them."
Looking back, Keith Hennessey, Bush's current chief economic adviser, said he and his colleagues had done the best they could "with the information we had at the time." But Hennessey did say he regretted that the administration had not paid more heed to the dangers of easy lending practices.
And both Paulson and his predecessor, John Snow, say the housing push went too far.
"The Bush administration took a lot of pride that home ownership had reached historic highs," Snow said during an interview. "But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost."
For much of the Bush presidency, the White House was preoccupied by terrorism and war; on the economic front, its pressing concerns were cutting taxes and privatizing Social Security, a government retirement and disability benefits program. The housing market was a bright spot: Ever-rising home values kept the economy humming, as owners drew down on their equity to buy consumer goods and pack their children off to college.
Lawrence Lindsay, Bush's first chief economic adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Bush meet housing goals.
"No one wanted to stop that bubble," Lindsay said. "It would have conflicted with the president's own policies."
Today, millions of Americans are facing foreclosure, home ownership rates are virtually no higher than when Bush took office, Fannie and Freddie are in a government conservatorship, and the bailout cost to taxpayers could run in the trillions of dollars.
As the economy has shed jobs - 533,000 last month alone - and his party has been punished by irate voters, the weakened president has granted his Treasury secretary extraordinary leeway in managing the crisis.
Never once, Paulson said in a recent interview, has Bush overruled him. "I've got a boss," he explained, who "understands that when you're dealing with something as unprecedented and fast-moving as this, we need to have a different operating style."
Paulson and other senior advisers to Bush say the administration has responded well to the turmoil, demonstrating flexibility under difficult circumstances. "There is not any playbook," Paulson said.
The White House issued an unusually extensive, and highly critical, response to The Times article on Sunday, saying that it had shown "gross negligence" in its reporting and that the story "relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed."
"The Times's 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view," the statement said.
In recent weeks Bush has shared his views of how the nation came to the brink of economic disaster. He cites corporate greed and market excesses fueled by a flood of foreign cash - "Wall Street got drunk," he has said - and the policies of past administrations. He blames Congress for failing to reform Fannie and Freddie.
Last week, Fox News asked Bush if he was worried about being the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century. "No," Bush replied. "I will be known as somebody who saw a problem and put the chips on the table to prevent the economy from collapsing."
Darrin West could not believe it. The president of the United States was standing in his living room. It was June 17, 2002, a day West recalls as "the highlight of my life." Bush, in Atlanta to introduce a plan to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million, was touring Park Place South, a development of starter homes in a neighborhood once marked by blight and crime.
West had patrolled there as a police officer, and now he was the proud owner of a $130,000 town house, bought with an adjustable-rate mortgage and a $20,000 government loan as his down payment - just the sort of creative public-private financing Bush was promoting.
"Part of economic security," Bush declared that day, "is owning your own home."
A lot has changed since then. West, beset by personal problems, has left Atlanta. Unable to sell his home for what he owed, he said, he gave it back to the bank last year. Like other communities across the United States, Park Place South has been hit with a foreclosure crisis affecting at least 10 percent of its 232 homes, according to Masharn Wilson, a developer who led Bush's tour. "I just don't think what he envisioned was actually carried out," she said.
Park Place South is, in microcosm, the story of a well-intentioned policy gone awry. Advocating home ownership is hardly novel; Bill Clinton's administration did it, too. For Bush, it was part of his vision of an "ownership society," in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.
But for much of Bush's tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put home ownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like West.
So Bush had to, in his words, "use the mighty muscle of the federal government" to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.
Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.
And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down. Republican congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.
The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."
And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment. But Bush populated the financial system's alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.
The president's first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission promised a "kinder, gentler" agency. The second was pushed out amid industry complaints that he was too aggressive. Under its current leader, the agency failed to police the catastrophic decisions that toppled the investment bank Bear Stearns and contributed to the current crisis, according to a recent inspector general's report.
As for Bush's banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks.
The administration won that fight at the Supreme Court. But Roy Cooper, North Carolina's attorney general, said, "They took 50 sheriffs off the beat at a time when lending was becoming the Wild West."
The president did push rules aimed at requiring lenders to explain loan terms more clearly. But the White House shelved them in 2004, after industry-friendly members of Congress threatened to block confirmation of his new housing secretary.
In the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Bush's re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The administration did not complete the new rules until last month.
Today, administration officials say it is fair to ask whether Bush's ownership push backfired. Paulson said the administration, like others before it, "over-incented housing."
Hennessey put it this way: "I would not say too much emphasis on expanding home ownership. I would say not enough early focus on easy lending practices."
Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.
Rich Addicks/The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Bush unveiled a plan to increase home ownership by members of American ethnic minorities in a speech in Atlanta in June 2002.
YOU KNOW FULL WELL WHAT CAUSED THIS ECONOMIC MELT DOWN,REPUBLICAN ,FAILURE ,THEY JUST CANNOT ,BUT,MOSTLY JUST DON'T --GOVERN.
-
AND ,YOU KNOW THAT WHEN YOU SAY ,BUSH DID NOT SIGN LEGISLATION THAT CAUSED THIS HIGH UN-EMPLOYMENT,,,HE DID NOT HAVE TO .
JUST LIKE HE LIED US IN TO ,A WAR ,BY,MANILUPATING,C.I.A. INFORMATION.AND FLAT OUT LIED AND ,SENT COLIN POWELL TO THE UNITED NATION'S TO LIE.
-
-
WASHINGTON — "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, "scared the hell out of everybody."
It was Sept. 18. Lehman Brothers had just gone belly-up, overwhelmed by toxic mortgages. Bank of America had swallowed Merrill Lynch in a hastily arranged sale. Two days earlier, Bush had agreed to pump $85 billion into the failing insurance giant American International Group.
The president listened as Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, laid out the latest terrifying news: The credit markets, gripped by panic, had frozen overnight, and banks were refusing to lend money.
Then his Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson Jr., told him that to stave off disaster, he would have to sign off on the biggest government bailout in history. Bush, according to several people in the room, paused for a single, stunned moment to take it all in.
"How," he wondered aloud, "did we get here?"
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.
As early as 2006, top advisers to Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn. As recently as February, for example, Bush was still calling it a "rough patch."
The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.
"There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems," said Al Hubbard, Bush's former chief economic adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. "Had we, we would have attacked them."
Looking back, Keith Hennessey, Bush's current chief economic adviser, said he and his colleagues had done the best they could "with the information we had at the time." But Hennessey did say he regretted that the administration had not paid more heed to the dangers of easy lending practices.
And both Paulson and his predecessor, John Snow, say the housing push went too far.
"The Bush administration took a lot of pride that home ownership had reached historic highs," Snow said during an interview. "But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost."
For much of the Bush presidency, the White House was preoccupied by terrorism and war; on the economic front, its pressing concerns were cutting taxes and privatizing Social Security, a government retirement and disability benefits program. The housing market was a bright spot: Ever-rising home values kept the economy humming, as owners drew down on their equity to buy consumer goods and pack their children off to college.
Lawrence Lindsay, Bush's first chief economic adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Bush meet housing goals.
"No one wanted to stop that bubble," Lindsay said. "It would have conflicted with the president's own policies."
Today, millions of Americans are facing foreclosure, home ownership rates are virtually no higher than when Bush took office, Fannie and Freddie are in a government conservatorship, and the bailout cost to taxpayers could run in the trillions of dollars.
As the economy has shed jobs - 533,000 last month alone - and his party has been punished by irate voters, the weakened president has granted his Treasury secretary extraordinary leeway in managing the crisis.
Never once, Paulson said in a recent interview, has Bush overruled him. "I've got a boss," he explained, who "understands that when you're dealing with something as unprecedented and fast-moving as this, we need to have a different operating style."
Paulson and other senior advisers to Bush say the administration has responded well to the turmoil, demonstrating flexibility under difficult circumstances. "There is not any playbook," Paulson said.
The White House issued an unusually extensive, and highly critical, response to The Times article on Sunday, saying that it had shown "gross negligence" in its reporting and that the story "relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed."
"The Times's 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view," the statement said.
In recent weeks Bush has shared his views of how the nation came to the brink of economic disaster. He cites corporate greed and market excesses fueled by a flood of foreign cash - "Wall Street got drunk," he has said - and the policies of past administrations. He blames Congress for failing to reform Fannie and Freddie.
Last week, Fox News asked Bush if he was worried about being the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century. "No," Bush replied. "I will be known as somebody who saw a problem and put the chips on the table to prevent the economy from collapsing."
Darrin West could not believe it. The president of the United States was standing in his living room. It was June 17, 2002, a day West recalls as "the highlight of my life." Bush, in Atlanta to introduce a plan to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million, was touring Park Place South, a development of starter homes in a neighborhood once marked by blight and crime.
West had patrolled there as a police officer, and now he was the proud owner of a $130,000 town house, bought with an adjustable-rate mortgage and a $20,000 government loan as his down payment - just the sort of creative public-private financing Bush was promoting.
"Part of economic security," Bush declared that day, "is owning your own home."
A lot has changed since then. West, beset by personal problems, has left Atlanta. Unable to sell his home for what he owed, he said, he gave it back to the bank last year. Like other communities across the United States, Park Place South has been hit with a foreclosure crisis affecting at least 10 percent of its 232 homes, according to Masharn Wilson, a developer who led Bush's tour. "I just don't think what he envisioned was actually carried out," she said.
Park Place South is, in microcosm, the story of a well-intentioned policy gone awry. Advocating home ownership is hardly novel; Bill Clinton's administration did it, too. For Bush, it was part of his vision of an "ownership society," in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.
But for much of Bush's tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put home ownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like West.
So Bush had to, in his words, "use the mighty muscle of the federal government" to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.
Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.
And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down. Republican congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.
The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."
And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment. But Bush populated the financial system's alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.
The president's first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission promised a "kinder, gentler" agency. The second was pushed out amid industry complaints that he was too aggressive. Under its current leader, the agency failed to police the catastrophic decisions that toppled the investment bank Bear Stearns and contributed to the current crisis, according to a recent inspector general's report.
As for Bush's banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks.
The administration won that fight at the Supreme Court. But Roy Cooper, North Carolina's attorney general, said, "They took 50 sheriffs off the beat at a time when lending was becoming the Wild West."
The president did push rules aimed at requiring lenders to explain loan terms more clearly. But the White House shelved them in 2004, after industry-friendly members of Congress threatened to block confirmation of his new housing secretary.
In the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Bush's re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The administration did not complete the new rules until last month.
Today, administration officials say it is fair to ask whether Bush's ownership push backfired. Paulson said the administration, like others before it, "over-incented housing."
Hennessey put it this way: "I would not say too much emphasis on expanding home ownership. I would say not enough early focus on easy lending practices."
Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.
Rich Addicks/The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Bush unveiled a plan to increase home ownership by members of American ethnic minorities in a speech in Atlanta in June 2002.
If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered
-
Rabbithoundjb
- Posts: 4517
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:30 pm
- Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
Well PMB you just made my point. You can't produce the laws/legislation to prove what you claim, you continue to post from leftist websites that just like you have a bias OPINION not facts. Yet you have no problem continueing to post false statements trying to present them as something proven. What you repeatedly post is nothing but bias political rhetoric and it is childish to continue posting someones bias opinion when you obviously can't prove any of it is factual. Your constant bias unproven false statements that you post that you can't prove render you pathetic and as inept as your failure in chief.
Show me where I have posted ANY right wing articles on this forum. Theres a reason why I don't because there simply in most cases just someones opinion. Opinions are like buttholes everyone has one, legislation/laws/executiveorders thats what causes the good or the bad. They are the root of prosperity or stagnation. Follow the laws and you find out who caused the problems, none of you leftist have the nads to face the facts you just want to keep repeating propaganda/rhetoric/lies/blogs and so on.
PMB YOU HAVE BEEN PLAYING THE SAME RECORD FOR FOUR YEARS NOW AND ITS STILL AS FALSE TODAY AS IT WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU POSTED IT.
Show me where I have posted ANY right wing articles on this forum. Theres a reason why I don't because there simply in most cases just someones opinion. Opinions are like buttholes everyone has one, legislation/laws/executiveorders thats what causes the good or the bad. They are the root of prosperity or stagnation. Follow the laws and you find out who caused the problems, none of you leftist have the nads to face the facts you just want to keep repeating propaganda/rhetoric/lies/blogs and so on.
PMB YOU HAVE BEEN PLAYING THE SAME RECORD FOR FOUR YEARS NOW AND ITS STILL AS FALSE TODAY AS IT WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU POSTED IT.
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
You know why I am not going to post legislation or anything else? Because no matter what I post and no matter how factual, if it proves you wrong you just accuse me of lying or going to "One of those Leftist or Commi sights" when in reality you guys get alot of your information from those "Right winger sights" It is nearly impossible to find anything that is written by an unbiased person. As much as I hate to say it sounds to me like you guys really are Hypocrites. What is good for one is good for all. And regardless of how big your EGO is you are mot always going to be right. It may well benefit you to look into others opinions from time to time. And before you post it I realize that I am not always right either. Unfortunately politics are not as one sided as most on this board are taught. That is why we are in this mess. People vote for their party and no matter what they are right the others are wrong.
-
Pine Mt Beagles
- Posts: 7803
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: Pineville Ky
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
EVERY AMERICAN THAT IS NOT IN A COMA KNOW'S ,
THAT WHAT I POSTED IS JUST EXACTLY WHAT WHAT HAPPENED,TO THE HOUSING BUBBLE,AND ECONOMY.
AND ,YOU LOVE POSTING ABOUT BILL CLINTON AND NAFTA--BUT,FAIL TO MENTION THAT YOUR REPUBLICAN PARTY PASSSED THE BILL BY A VAST MAJORITY,AND THEY HAD THE MAJORITY.
THAT WHAT I POSTED IS JUST EXACTLY WHAT WHAT HAPPENED,TO THE HOUSING BUBBLE,AND ECONOMY.
AND ,YOU LOVE POSTING ABOUT BILL CLINTON AND NAFTA--BUT,FAIL TO MENTION THAT YOUR REPUBLICAN PARTY PASSSED THE BILL BY A VAST MAJORITY,AND THEY HAD THE MAJORITY.
If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
Pine Mt Beagles wrote:YOU LOVE POSTING ABOUT BILL CLINTON AND NAFTA--BUT,FAIL TO MENTION THAT YOUR REPUBLICAN PARTY PASSSED THE BILL BY A VAST MAJORITY,AND THEY HAD THE MAJORITY.
Just so we're clear here...you AGREE with what the Republicans did then??
YOU AGREE WITH REPUBLICANS???
I think they made a HUGE mistake with NAFTA...thats the difference between believing in a political party or believing in an ideology...convictions versus convienence.
Guess which side you fall on Rufus???
The 1st amendment allows the usual liberal narcissistic "I think.." which is how they start all their sentences.
The second amendment protects us from implementing "I think"
The second amendment protects us from implementing "I think"
-
Rabbithoundjb
- Posts: 4517
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:30 pm
- Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
Another false post by PMB as I have said numerous times that several dumb republicans voted for Nafta but you might want to check Nafta was passed before the repubs. took majority over the house. By the way remember your post the next time you blame Bush for the wars and spending, as dems almost to a person voted for both. As Bluegrass said I have principles that outweigh a party. I have no problem faulting the republicans when they screw up. I don't make excuses and blame everybody else when they vote stupid or pass something that cripples the country. Another one of your everybody knows what happened posts because YOU can't support your rhetoric. LMAO!
Robbie if you don't know the difference between an opinion and a fact or blog cut and paste verses legislation/laws then no need for me try and explain it. Again if you think I am wrong about something I post, prove it. Thats not ego, thats debating.
Robbie if you don't know the difference between an opinion and a fact or blog cut and paste verses legislation/laws then no need for me try and explain it. Again if you think I am wrong about something I post, prove it. Thats not ego, thats debating.
-
Pine Mt Beagles
- Posts: 7803
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: Pineville Ky
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
NO ACTUALLY AS OF TODAY ,AFTER WATCHING THE LAST DEBATE ,AND THE ANTI AMERICAN'S IN SOUTH CAROLINA WHO VOTED AGAINST NOT ONLY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ,BUT AGAINST AMERICA.
I AGREE WITH THE OLD MAN AT THE BARBER SHOP ,THE OTHER DAY,PUT THE REPUBLICAN ,POLITICIAN'S IN A JAR TIGHTEN THE LID AND BURY THEM DEEP.
I AGREE WITH THE OLD MAN AT THE BARBER SHOP ,THE OTHER DAY,PUT THE REPUBLICAN ,POLITICIAN'S IN A JAR TIGHTEN THE LID AND BURY THEM DEEP.
If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered
-
Rabbithoundjb
- Posts: 4517
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:30 pm
- Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
That post PMB shows just how afraid Obama and the Obama-ites are of Newt, why. Here is why, he is the ONLY canidate on either side that has a proven federal record of working successfully with both sides, actual improvements.
Nobody who supports the failure in cheif wants to see him have to debate and be taken to task by a confrontational Gingrich that won't give him a free pass on lieing. Every Obama-ite is scared silly by Gingrich and that includes you.
Myself I think its time someone confronts Obama that won't back down.
Nobody who supports the failure in cheif wants to see him have to debate and be taken to task by a confrontational Gingrich that won't give him a free pass on lieing. Every Obama-ite is scared silly by Gingrich and that includes you.
Myself I think its time someone confronts Obama that won't back down.
-
Pine Mt Beagles
- Posts: 7803
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: Pineville Ky
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
NO REAL AMERICAN WILL VOTE FOR THIS PIECE OF TRASH ,LIKE ,NO CHRISTAN WILL EITHER ,,JUST BIGGOT'S AND HIPPOCRIT'S.
If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
Pine Mt Beagles wrote:NO REAL AMERICAN WILL VOTE FOR THIS PIECE OF TRASH ,LIKE ,NO CHRISTAN WILL EITHER ,,JUST BIGGOT'S AND HIPPOCRIT'S.
In your feeble, pain medicine warped mind do you actually THINK that what you say is true? I mean, do you really think that EVERYONE that votes for Newt is not a "real American"???
Is that how things work on Planet Rufus? You simply obsess on an idea and it becomes reality for EVERYONE????
What a sad, meager existence you lead Rufus...I pity you.
The 1st amendment allows the usual liberal narcissistic "I think.." which is how they start all their sentences.
The second amendment protects us from implementing "I think"
The second amendment protects us from implementing "I think"
-
Rabbithoundjb
- Posts: 4517
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:30 pm
- Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Re: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN FAILURE
No chritian would vote for Newt huh, because he had an affair. So how many christens will vote for Obama as he supports killing babies and having the tax payers fund it.