Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bush continued the housing policies that were put in place by Clinton and that was his mistake. He then gave Obama TARP to fix the problem and Obama pissed it away on green energy programs and then laughed when asked about all of those shovel ready jobs that weren't there.
Much ignorance there.
1. CRA was put in place in 1977, revised during Clinton and was way down in scope before real estate exploded. It was looked into and the link wan't found, meaning in areas covered by program there were not more foreclosures than non-CRA mortgages.
Most economists attribute GR first and foremost to market exuberance and widespread risk management failures. In English that means real estate was commonly thought of fool-proof investment to be leveraged to no end by fancy financial instruments...and then reality proved that it wasn't.
2. TARP worked more or less as intended, likely preventing widespread financial sector collapse and in the end cost the tax payers. Original 700 billion price tag turned out to be actually around ~30 billion dollar net expense to Federal government after financial institutions have repaid most of it (with interest)
3. The "Green programs" were not part of TARP they were part ARRA aka. Stimulus. The fact that some projects had some delay in implementation (referred to as "not shovel ready") , doesn't mean they didn't happen. They did, even if half a year or year later, in 2011-2012.
Bush continued the housing policies that were put in place by Clinton and that was his mistake. He then gave Obama TARP to fix the problem and Obama pissed it away on green energy programs and then laughed when asked about all of those shovel ready jobs that weren't there.
Much ignorance there.
1. CRA was put in place in 1977, revised during Clinton and was way down in scope before real estate exploded. It was looked into and the link wan't found, meaning in areas covered by program there were not more foreclosures than non-CRA mortgages.
Most economists attribute GR first and foremost to market exuberance and widespread risk management failures. In English that means real estate was commonly thought of fool-proof investment to be leveraged to no end by fancy financial instruments...and then reality proved that it wasn't.
2. TARP worked more or less as intended, likely preventing widespread financial sector collapse and in the end cost the tax payers. Original 700 billion price tag turned out to be actually around ~30 billion dollar net expense to Federal government after financial institutions have repaid most of it (with interest)
3. The "Green programs" were not part of TARP they were part ARRA aka. Stimulus. The fact that some projects had some delay in implementation (referred to as "not shovel ready") , doesn't mean they didn't happen. They did, even if half a year or year later, in 2011-2012.
No, you could say the same about Al Gore. I remember his childish antics during the debates, where his trick would be to sneak up behind someone and stand very close to them. He tried this on Bush, and it backfired:If Trump challenges it, it may be on perfectly reasonable grounds.
Or it may because he has the temperament and personality of a spoiled, petulant 15-year old boy.
And he is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime about whom I can say that.
.
How has BONOBO's "lead from behind" policies worked out? YA FUCKING RIGHT!!Comparing the public behaviors of those two men couldn't provide a clearer contrast.If Trump challenges it, it may be on perfectly reasonable grounds.
Or it may because he has the temperament and personality of a spoiled, petulant 15-year old boy.
And he is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime about whom I can say that.
.
You weren't paying attention to Obama and his whining about everything that went wrong was George Bush's fault. And that went on for at least 4 years.
Trump's fans love his behavior - the attacks, the insults, the name-calling, the non-stop hyperbole.
Obama is the opposite of that, and I think we all know it.
.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with my point.How has BONOBO's "lead from behind" policies worked out? YA FUCKING RIGHT!!Comparing the public behaviors of those two men couldn't provide a clearer contrast.If Trump challenges it, it may be on perfectly reasonable grounds.
Or it may because he has the temperament and personality of a spoiled, petulant 15-year old boy.
And he is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime about whom I can say that.
.
You weren't paying attention to Obama and his whining about everything that went wrong was George Bush's fault. And that went on for at least 4 years.
Trump's fans love his behavior - the attacks, the insults, the name-calling, the non-stop hyperbole.
Obama is the opposite of that, and I think we all know it.
.
The little pussy couldn't have had a job serving the coffee in the White house cafeteria if it hadn't been for 'White-guilt' BBC fantasizing women and the fucking OJ jury.
Al Gore challenged the 2000 election, leading to nasty feelings that survive to this day.
The problem started when the networks started calling Florida for Al Gore, based on polls closing in the eastern seaboard part of the state. But the panhandle is in Central Time, and the polls were still open. The Bush team called the networks and told them their predictions of a Florida victory for Gore were premature.
And then it turned out that Bush won Florida, by a wafer-thin margin of some 600 votes. And that decided the election.
Al Gore insisted that he had won the popular vote, and therefore Bush should concede the election. I watched him do this on national TV and the reporter looked at him with disgust. Gore was being a sore loser, a man who knew the Electoral College was the way the Constitution set up the Presidential election, but then demanded a rule change when he didn't win that way.
Al Gore, refusing to concede an election he had lost fair and square, challenged the count in four prescincts, all controlled by the Democratic Party, where he knew the Democratic Party could control the recount. A farcical process followed, whereby paper ballots were analyzed for "hanging chads" and other proof that the ballots had been counted wrong.
The Florida Supreme Court got involved. Bush asked them to put an end to the recount so that a winner could be declared but they refused. So then the United States Supreme Court stepped in, and put an end to it.
Democrats since then have insisted that Bush "stole the election" and this created a toxic atmosphere in Washington that lasted throughout the Bush administration.
The media paid for another recount, but when they finally counted up the votes and found out Bush did actually win the election, they buried the results to perpetuate the lie that Bush did not actually win the election.
For Democrats to attack Trump NOW, for saying he might challenge this election if he loses, as some sort of threat to the American Way of Life, Mom, and Apple Pie, is the height of hypocrisy. They obviously expect the media to NOT remind the American people that the Democrats did this just 16 years ago, and maybe they think the American people are too stupid to remember.
Your "point" is Obama has been an incredible President. Wonderful wonderful in all ways.Which, of course, has nothing to do with my point.How has BONOBO's "lead from behind" policies worked out? YA FUCKING RIGHT!!Comparing the public behaviors of those two men couldn't provide a clearer contrast.If Trump challenges it, it may be on perfectly reasonable grounds.
Or it may because he has the temperament and personality of a spoiled, petulant 15-year old boy.
And he is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime about whom I can say that.
.
You weren't paying attention to Obama and his whining about everything that went wrong was George Bush's fault. And that went on for at least 4 years.
Trump's fans love his behavior - the attacks, the insults, the name-calling, the non-stop hyperbole.
Obama is the opposite of that, and I think we all know it.
.
The little pussy couldn't have had a job serving the coffee in the White house cafeteria if it hadn't been for 'White-guilt' BBC fantasizing women and the fucking OJ jury.
.
Well, there's one for the Straw Man Hall of Fame.Your "point" is Obama has been an incredible President. Wonderful wonderful in all ways.
Bush doubled down on the Clinton housing and made it a key initiative of his, to add 5 million more poor people in to homes....If Trump challenges it, it may be on perfectly reasonable grounds.
Or it may because he has the temperament and personality of a spoiled, petulant 15-year old boy.
And he is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime about whom I can say that.
.
You weren't paying attention to Obama and his whining about everything that went wrong was George Bush's fault. And that went on for at least 4 years.
The egregious whining I've seen was from Republicans who refuse to accept that Bush was a president for 8 years and affected the world beyond his stay in office. According to them the clock rewinded back to 2000 at midnight on Jan 21 2009.
Great Recession on Jan 22 2009 ? OBAMA-DID-IT DONCHA-KNOW!!!
Bush continued the housing policies that were put in place by Clinton and that was his mistake. He then gave Obama TARP to fix the problem and Obama pissed it away on green energy programs and then laughed when asked about all of those shovel ready jobs that weren't there.
Al Gore insisted that he had won the popular vote, and therefore Bush should concede the election. I watched him do this on national TV and the reporter looked at him with disgust. Gore was being a sore loser, a man who knew the Electoral College was the way the Constitution set up the Presidential election, but then demanded a rule change when he didn't win that way.
Izzat so.
Link?
Are you aware that Al Gore, as the still-sitting vice-president, squashed a protest attempt in the House to award him the Presidency when it came time to certify the vote? Apparently not.
Al Gore, refusing to concede an election he had lost fair and square, challenged the count in four prescincts, all controlled by the Democratic Party, where he knew the Democratic Party could control the recount. A farcical process followed, whereby paper ballots were analyzed for "hanging chads" and other proof that the ballots had been counted wrong.
Actually the state laws of Florida required a recount because of the narrow margin. It's routine.
The Florida Supreme Court got involved. Bush asked them to put an end to the recount so that a winner could be declared but they refused.
You ah, can't declare a winner if you haven't counted the votes. Think about it. Linear time.
So then the United States Supreme Court stepped in, and put an end to it.
Oh yes, the Court with two justices carrying Bush-related conflict-of-interest baggage. Yup I do remember that.
Democrats since then have insisted that Bush "stole the election" and this created a toxic atmosphere in Washington that lasted throughout the Bush administration.
Ever hear of "Iraq"?
For Democrats to attack Trump NOW, for saying he might challenge this election if he loses, as some sort of threat to the American Way of Life, Mom, and Apple Pie, is the height of hypocrisy.
Actually it's the height if illiteracy because Rump never referred to "challenging" an election result. You can't "challenge" a vote that hasn't happened yet (again -- linear time). What he called into question was whether he would accept the decision of the electorate. Which in no way refers to challenging a vote count. In order to challenge a vote count (as in Bush v. Gore), you kinda have to first HAVE a vote --- and THEN it has to be a close one. Neither is the case today.
Now if Al Gore had gone "OK I know the Electoral College voted in the other guy but I don't accept it and I should be President" --- then you'd have (the beginnings of) a valid comparison.
Amirite, President Gore?
"Al Gore insisted that he had won the popular vote, and therefore Bush should concede the election. I watched him do this on national TV and the reporter looked at him with disgust. Gore was being a sore loser, a man who knew the Electoral College was the way the Constitution set up the Presidential election, but then demanded a rule change when he didn't win that way.
Izzat so.
Link?
Are you aware that Al Gore, as the still-sitting vice-president, squashed a protest attempt in the House to award him the Presidency when it came time to certify the vote? Apparently not.
Al Gore, refusing to concede an election he had lost fair and square, challenged the count in four prescincts, all controlled by the Democratic Party, where he knew the Democratic Party could control the recount. A farcical process followed, whereby paper ballots were analyzed for "hanging chads" and other proof that the ballots had been counted wrong.
Actually the state laws of Florida required a recount because of the narrow margin. It's routine.
The Florida Supreme Court got involved. Bush asked them to put an end to the recount so that a winner could be declared but they refused.
You ah, can't declare a winner if you haven't counted the votes. Think about it. Linear time.
So then the United States Supreme Court stepped in, and put an end to it.
Oh yes, the Court with two justices carrying Bush-related conflict-of-interest baggage. Yup I do remember that.
Democrats since then have insisted that Bush "stole the election" and this created a toxic atmosphere in Washington that lasted throughout the Bush administration.
Ever hear of "Iraq"?
For Democrats to attack Trump NOW, for saying he might challenge this election if he loses, as some sort of threat to the American Way of Life, Mom, and Apple Pie, is the height of hypocrisy.
Actually it's the height if illiteracy because Rump never referred to "challenging" an election result. You can't "challenge" a vote that hasn't happened yet (again -- linear time). What he called into question was whether he would accept the decision of the electorate. Which in no way refers to challenging a vote count. In order to challenge a vote count (as in Bush v. Gore), you kinda have to first HAVE a vote --- and THEN it has to be a close one. Neither is the case today.
Now if Al Gore had gone "OK I know the Electoral College voted in the other guy but I don't accept it and I should be President" --- then you'd have (the beginnings of) a valid comparison.
Amirite, President Gore?
" You can't "challenge" a vote that hasn't happened"
Exactly right, but neither can you simply say hell yes I'll support it until it happens, your hypocrisy is showing child.
Contrast what Gore did in 2000 to the class that Nixon showed in the 1960 elections when he was presented with clear evidence of voter tampering. He chose not to challenge the results as opposed to Al Gore who raised all kinds of stink but who thankfully lost.
The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted.
Are y'all deliberately playing stupid? Is that what today's briefing dictated?
He later proved what a total dick he is with his fraudulent movie and ultimate sellout to Al-Jazeera.
So you're against capitalism huh?
What should he have done --- just give the network away?
"Al Gore insisted that he had won the popular vote, and therefore Bush should concede the election. I watched him do this on national TV and the reporter looked at him with disgust. Gore was being a sore loser, a man who knew the Electoral College was the way the Constitution set up the Presidential election, but then demanded a rule change when he didn't win that way.
Izzat so.
Link?
Are you aware that Al Gore, as the still-sitting vice-president, squashed a protest attempt in the House to award him the Presidency when it came time to certify the vote? Apparently not.
Al Gore, refusing to concede an election he had lost fair and square, challenged the count in four prescincts, all controlled by the Democratic Party, where he knew the Democratic Party could control the recount. A farcical process followed, whereby paper ballots were analyzed for "hanging chads" and other proof that the ballots had been counted wrong.
Actually the state laws of Florida required a recount because of the narrow margin. It's routine.
The Florida Supreme Court got involved. Bush asked them to put an end to the recount so that a winner could be declared but they refused.
You ah, can't declare a winner if you haven't counted the votes. Think about it. Linear time.
So then the United States Supreme Court stepped in, and put an end to it.
Oh yes, the Court with two justices carrying Bush-related conflict-of-interest baggage. Yup I do remember that.
Democrats since then have insisted that Bush "stole the election" and this created a toxic atmosphere in Washington that lasted throughout the Bush administration.
Ever hear of "Iraq"?
For Democrats to attack Trump NOW, for saying he might challenge this election if he loses, as some sort of threat to the American Way of Life, Mom, and Apple Pie, is the height of hypocrisy.
Actually it's the height if illiteracy because Rump never referred to "challenging" an election result. You can't "challenge" a vote that hasn't happened yet (again -- linear time). What he called into question was whether he would accept the decision of the electorate. Which in no way refers to challenging a vote count. In order to challenge a vote count (as in Bush v. Gore), you kinda have to first HAVE a vote --- and THEN it has to be a close one. Neither is the case today.
Now if Al Gore had gone "OK I know the Electoral College voted in the other guy but I don't accept it and I should be President" --- then you'd have (the beginnings of) a valid comparison.
Amirite, President Gore?
" You can't "challenge" a vote that hasn't happened"
Exactly right, but neither can you simply say hell yes I'll support it until it happens, your hypocrisy is showing child.
Why the fuck not? Every candidate always has up to now. It's the first thing a concession calls for.
I mean unless you have no confidence in your own country's system and cream your jeans at the thought of Vlad the Imputiner.
Oh wait....
Contrast what Gore did in 2000 to the class that Nixon showed in the 1960 elections when he was presented with clear evidence of voter tampering. He chose not to challenge the results as opposed to Al Gore who raised all kinds of stink but who thankfully lost.
The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted.
Are y'all deliberately playing stupid? Is that what today's briefing dictated?
He later proved what a total dick he is with his fraudulent movie and ultimate sellout to Al-Jazeera.
So you're against capitalism huh?
What should he have done --- just give the network away?
"The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted."
Aren't you just oh so clever kid?
That will be the question this time around, you children think that your silly little word games are clever, it is funny that every one of you Lefty's love this game
ALL questions are about the legitimacy of the vote tallying, and even the voting mechanisms themselves.
Your, yes YOUR "chads" came back to bite you in the ass.
Actually the state laws of Florida required a recount because of the narrow margin. It's routine
Contrast what Gore did in 2000 to the class that Nixon showed in the 1960 elections when he was presented with clear evidence of voter tampering. He chose not to challenge the results as opposed to Al Gore who raised all kinds of stink but who thankfully lost.
The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted.
Are y'all deliberately playing stupid? Is that what today's briefing dictated?
He later proved what a total dick he is with his fraudulent movie and ultimate sellout to Al-Jazeera.
So you're against capitalism huh?
What should he have done --- just give the network away?
"The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted."
Aren't you just oh so clever kid?
That will be the question this time around, you children think that your silly little word games are clever, it is funny that every one of you Lefty's love this game
ALL questions are about the legitimacy of the vote tallying, and even the voting mechanisms themselves.
Your, yes YOUR "chads" came back to bite you in the ass.
That's completely incoherent. Might be time to seal up the paint cans.
The fact that the OP drew a false comparison is not up for negotiation. He did, and I demonstrated it. The thread has no point.
Prove me wrong.
Contrast what Gore did in 2000 to the class that Nixon showed in the 1960 elections when he was presented with clear evidence of voter tampering. He chose not to challenge the results as opposed to Al Gore who raised all kinds of stink but who thankfully lost.
The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted.
Are y'all deliberately playing stupid? Is that what today's briefing dictated?
He later proved what a total dick he is with his fraudulent movie and ultimate sellout to Al-Jazeera.
So you're against capitalism huh?
What should he have done --- just give the network away?
"The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted."
Aren't you just oh so clever kid?
That will be the question this time around, you children think that your silly little word games are clever, it is funny that every one of you Lefty's love this game
ALL questions are about the legitimacy of the vote tallying, and even the voting mechanisms themselves.
Your, yes YOUR "chads" came back to bite you in the ass.
That's completely incoherent. Might be time to seal up the paint cans.
The fact that the OP drew a false comparison is not up for negotiation. He did, and I demonstrated it. The thread has no point.
Prove me wrong.
Contrast what Gore did in 2000 to the class that Nixon showed in the 1960 elections when he was presented with clear evidence of voter tampering. He chose not to challenge the results as opposed to Al Gore who raised all kinds of stink but who thankfully lost.
The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted.
Are y'all deliberately playing stupid? Is that what today's briefing dictated?
He later proved what a total dick he is with his fraudulent movie and ultimate sellout to Al-Jazeera.
So you're against capitalism huh?
What should he have done --- just give the network away?
"The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted."
Aren't you just oh so clever kid?
That will be the question this time around, you children think that your silly little word games are clever, it is funny that every one of you Lefty's love this game
ALL questions are about the legitimacy of the vote tallying, and even the voting mechanisms themselves.
Your, yes YOUR "chads" came back to bite you in the ass.
That's completely incoherent. Might be time to seal up the paint cans.
The fact that the OP drew a false comparison is not up for negotiation. He did, and I demonstrated it. The thread has no point.
Prove me wrong.
You want the Republican to validate the vote before the election and you didn't expect the Democrat to accept it after the election. Sounds fair to me ...
^ Bullshit.Actually the state laws of Florida required a recount because of the narrow margin. It's routine
Actually, they had counted the vote and recounted it already and W won both times before the farce of the Democrats in four Democrat controlled counties performing a "hand count" started. The hand count of course being a hand vote where Democrats tried to steal the election before the Supreme Court stopped it on a 9-0 vote
