CNN Truth Squad: Did Obama destroy the economy?

[The Infidel]

Pretty much, Independent.

I like Jarhead, but I just think he's caught up in partisanry to the point where he just can't see what he's doing.

"I'm about to drop out because despite the fact that I posted right on point, you received it as a diversion. The more I try and split the blame between two groups...the less you seem willing to agree. Confronted with reasonability...you stick your head in the sand and still want to "win".

I think I'm beginning to learn the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives
Con: They dont see shades of grey, only black and white memes.
Pro: Once they hear something that sounds common sense...they can dig in and stand behind it forever.

Liberals:
Con: They see things in too many shades of grey and finesse.
Pro: They can split issues into more than just 100% black and white.

Neither is better. Just different. Oh wait I'm sounding too reasonable.

Hadn't actualy noticed that Jarhead agreed with CaliGirl's assessment that I "must be a Liberal" because unlike her, I hold both Bush and Obama, both Repubs and Dems culpable.

I also agree with your assessment of Libs vs. Dems above. If you disagree with a Lib, they'll argue the point. If you agree with a Conserv - but not entirely, they often don't argue the point or directly address it, they just call you a Liberal (Caligirl being an example of that in this thread).

As far as no one in government being responsible, I would disagree completely. If there is no law against murder, will it happen more often? You bet. What if the govt just "deregulates" murder so that it's easier to get away with? You bet.
Well, the Dems shoved a bunch of unqualified buyers down the throats of banks. Obviously that was evantually going to have consequences. The Repubs deregulated the Commerical Mortgage Backed Securities industry so that millions of bad mortgages could be sold at huge profits and when things went wrong, we got the bill for it. That also had consequences.
In one case, the Libs forced "equality" for those who didn't earn it, through regulation.
In the other, The Conservs took all responsibility for screwing investors away from the Corps and Banks, through deregulation.
Bad mix.

The republicans were forced into a huge banking mess by Democrats - especially the housing collapse.. This is horse shit... they went along to get along

In short, pretty much Bill Clinton and Al Sharpton in 1992 claimed republicans were racists and hated the poor if the congress did not make home loans a "RIGHT."

What the fuck do you think will happen when you lend not on financial income but on race or lack of income???

Forcing banks to pretty much lend to people they will never recover the money from is a BAD FUCKING IDEA...

This is ALL progressives problem - the notion that banks should just buy people free homes and allow them to borrow against them is typical socialism...

The biggest mistake was that republicans actually went along with the plan just so they "didn't look like racists."

Then Bush tried to stop it and he was called a racist while Barney Frank claimed there were no problems and the program was perfectly sound...

Few months later we collapsed...

Republicans are guilty of passing ALL CRA amendments - that's it...

You guys are basically both right.... there is PLENTY of blame to go around.

Its time we get the mess we ALL created cleaned up.

 

[The Infidel]

As far as no one in government being responsible, I would disagree completely. If there is no law against murder, will it happen more often? You bet. What if the govt just "deregulates" murder so that it's easier to get away with? You bet.
Well, the Dems shoved a bunch of unqualified buyers down the throats of banks. Obviously that was evantually going to have consequences. The Repubs deregulated the Commerical Mortgage Backed Securities industry so that millions of bad mortgages could be sold at huge profits and when things went wrong, we got the bill for it. That also had consequences.
In one case, the Libs forced "equality" for those who didn't earn it, through regulation.
In the other, The Conservs took all responsibility for screwing investors away from the Corps and Banks, through deregulation.
Bad mix.

Plenty of blame for both parties.... The Teaparty is here to get the mess cleaned up

Someone give me a mop... Im ready to clean house!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bush tripped the economy, that fuckup Obama beat it with a baseball bat until it stopped moving.

Bush was a fucking HORRIBLE president.

Compared to Obama, Bush was eminently qualified.

 

[The T]

Pretty much, Independent.

I like Jarhead, but I just think he's caught up in partisanry to the point where he just can't see what he's doing.

"I'm about to drop out because despite the fact that I posted right on point, you received it as a diversion. The more I try and split the blame between two groups...the less you seem willing to agree. Confronted with reasonability...you stick your head in the sand and still want to "win".

I think I'm beginning to learn the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives
Con: They dont see shades of grey, only black and white memes.
Pro: Once they hear something that sounds common sense...they can dig in and stand behind it forever.

Liberals:
Con: They see things in too many shades of grey and finesse.
Pro: They can split issues into more than just 100% black and white.

Neither is better. Just different. Oh wait I'm sounding too reasonable.

Hadn't actualy noticed that Jarhead agreed with CaliGirl's assessment that I "must be a Liberal" because unlike her, I hold both Bush and Obama, both Repubs and Dems culpable.

I also agree with your assessment of Libs vs. Dems above. If you disagree with a Lib, they'll argue the point. If you agree with a Conserv - but not entirely, they often don't argue the point or directly address it, they just call you a Liberal (Caligirl being an example of that in this thread).

As far as no one in government being responsible, I would disagree completely. If there is no law against murder, will it happen more often? You bet. What if the govt just "deregulates" murder so that it's easier to get away with? You bet.
Well, the Dems shoved a bunch of unqualified buyers down the throats of banks. Obviously that was evantually going to have consequences. The Repubs deregulated the Commerical Mortgage Backed Securities industry so that millions of bad mortgages could be sold at huge profits and when things went wrong, we got the bill for it. That also had consequences.
In one case, the Libs forced "equality" for those who didn't earn it, through regulation.
In the other, The Conservs took all responsibility for screwing investors away from the Corps and Banks, through deregulation.
Bad mix.

Bad Mix, and Forcing the Power of law to manipulate. What do you expect?

Indeed. LAW is supposed to protect liberty equally.

 

[The Infidel]

Indeed. LAW is supposed to protect liberty equally.

Keyword

 

[The T]

Indeed. LAW is supposed to protect liberty equally.

Keyword

Precisely.

 

[The Infidel]

Ive read thru this thread and it occurs to me that most folks agree.... we need CHANGE







Just not the kind Obama is offering.

 

[The T]

Bush tripped the economy, that fuckup Obama beat it with a baseball bat until it stopped moving.

Bush was a fucking HORRIBLE president.

Compared to Obama, Bush was eminently qualified.

Indeed. And Obama kept squeezing the Golden Goose until all it will produce is shit.

 

[bucs90]

This thread dwells so far down into the abyss of liberal idiocy, that I fear if I dive in, I'll never make it out. I'm gonna pass.

 

[bucs90]

On second thought...............




Everything that made the Duke University football program a losing program was in place and happened before the current coach was hired. Thus, should we excuse him from ever being held accountable for the state of the program? Or should be get a 100% pass on it, and kept on the job, since it's not his fault Duke is bad, right?

 

[The Infidel]

Bush tripped the economy, that fuckup Obama beat it with a baseball bat until it stopped moving.

Bush was a fucking HORRIBLE president.

Compared to Obama, Bush was eminently qualified.

Indeed. And Obama kept squeezing the Golden Goose until all it will produce is shit.

This thread dwells so far down into the abyss of liberal idiocy, that I fear if I dive in, I'll never make it out. I'm gonna pass.

C'mon in, the water is fine!

 

[Intense]

Bush tripped the economy, that fuckup Obama beat it with a baseball bat until it stopped moving.

Bush was a fucking HORRIBLE president.

Compared to Obama, Bush was eminently qualified.

Indeed. And Obama kept squeezing the Golden Goose until all it will produce is shit.

This thread dwells so far down into the abyss of liberal idiocy, that I fear if I dive in, I'll never make it out. I'm gonna pass.

C'mon in, the water is fine!

Pâté Dude... I mean Really!

 

[The T]

This thread dwells so far down into the abyss of liberal idiocy, that I fear if I dive in, I'll never make it out. I'm gonna pass.

It's all good.

 

[The Infidel]

Indeed. And Obama kept squeezing the Golden Goose until all it will produce is shit.

This thread dwells so far down into the abyss of liberal idiocy, that I fear if I dive in, I'll never make it out. I'm gonna pass.

C'mon in, the water is fine!

Pâté Dude... I mean Really!

Dont mind if I do.... *pinky in air*

 

[bripat9643]

the problem is both parties spin the intentions and motives of the opposing party.
So we never really have an honest and fair debate.
And a third party will have an entire congress working against them...and nothing will be done over a 4 year period.

No one has to spin the intentions of the Democrat party to scare people. All one has to do is observe what they do.. That is horrifying enough to steer any rational person away from them.

 

[bripat9643]

for example....

Democrats dont want to give entitlements to the lazy...they want to give them to those that dont want them, but need them....and unfortunately, it also helps the lazy that dont want to do for themselves.

The end result is that Democrats give money to the lazy. That's all that matters. Your intentions are irrelevant. That's one of the biggest problems with Democrats: they think their intentions matter more than results.

Republicans dont want to assist the wealthy at the expoense of the working class. They want the small business owners to have the comfort and secruity necessary to take chances and expand...and unfoirtunately that ALSO helps the uber rich that dont need the help.

By "helping the uber rich" you mean not plundering them for everything they have. According to that definition, I am interested in helping the uber rich. No one deserves to have everything they have earned taken from them by a gang of prehensile morons.

 

[The T]

C'mon in, the water is fine!

Pâté Dude... I mean Really!

Dont mind if I do.... *pinky in air*

Wrong place for da pinky Dr. Evil Conservative...

 

[The Infidel]

 

[IndependntLogic]

Y

Pretty much, Independent.

I like Jarhead, but I just tthink he's caught up in partisanry to the point where he just can't see what he's doing.

"I'm about to drop out because despite the fact that I posted right on point, you received it as a diversion. The more I try and split the blame between two groups...the less you seem willing to agree. Confronted with reasonability...you stick your head in the sand and still want to "win".

I think I'm beginning to learn the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives
Con: They dont see shades of grey, only black and white memes.
Pro: Once they hear something that sounds common sense...they can dig in and stand behind it forever.

Liberals:
Con: They see things in too many shades of grey and finesse.
Pro: They can split issues into more than just 100% black and white.

Neither is better. Just different. Oh wait I'm sounding too reasonable.

Hadn't actualy noticed that Jarhead agreed with CaliGirl's assessment that I "must be a Liberal" because unlike her, I hold both Bush and Obama, both Repubs and Dems culpable.

I also agree with your assessment of Libs vs. Dems above. If you disagree with a Lib, they'll argue the point. If you agree with a Conserv - but not entirely, they often don't argue the point or directly address it, they just call you a Liberal (Caligirl being an example of that in this thread).

As far as no one in government being responsible, I would disagree completely. If there is no law against murder, will it happen more often? You bet. What if the govt just "deregulates" murder so that it's easier to get away with? You bet.
Well, the Dems shoved a bunch of unqualified buyers down the throats of banks. Obviously that was evantually going to have consequences. The Repubs deregulated the Commerical Mortgage Backed Securities industry so that millions of bad mortgages could be sold at huge profits and when things went wrong, we got the bill for it. That also had consequences.
In one case, the Libs forced "equality" for those who didn't earn it, through regulation.
In the other, The Conservs took all responsibility for screwing investors away from the Corps and Banks, through deregulation.
Bad mix.

The republicans were forced into a huge banking mess by Democrats - especially the housing collapse..

In short, pretty much Bill Clinton and Al Sharpton in 1992 claimed republicans were racists and hated the poor if the congress did not make home loans a "RIGHT."

What the fuck do you think will happen when you lend not on financial income but on race or lack of income???

Forcing banks to pretty much lend to people they will never recover the money from is a BAD FUCKING IDEA...

This is ALL progressives problem - the notion that banks should just buy people free homes and allow them to borrow against them is typical socialism...

The biggest mistake was that republicans actually went along with the plan just so they "didn't look like racists."

Then Bush tried to stop it and he was called a racist while Barney Frank claimed there were no problems and the program was perfectly sound...

Few months later we collapsed...

Republicans are guilty of passing ALL CRA amendments - that's it...

Yes, yes um those were very nice rants. Of course, I already said all that about the Dems but I understand why you are so hysterical.
I didn't say that everything on Earth is the fault of Dems and that the Republicans are good and sweet and pure in every way... LOL!
Well it's nice to have entertainment, if not objectivity in the posts here...

 

[Mr.Nick]

Y

Hadn't actualy noticed that Jarhead agreed with CaliGirl's assessment that I "must be a Liberal" because unlike her, I hold both Bush and Obama, both Repubs and Dems culpaYeable.

I also agree with your assessment of Libs vs. Dems above. If you disagree with a Lib, they'll argue the point. If you agree with a Conserv - but not entirely, they often don't argue the point or directly address it, they just call you a Liberal (Caligirl being an example of that in this thread).

As far as no one in government being responsible, I would disagree completely. If there is no law against murder, will it happen more often? You bet. What if the govt just "deregulates" murder so that it's easier to get away with? You bet.
Well, the Dems shoved a bunch of unqualified buyers down the throats of banks. Obviously that was evantually going to have consequences. The Repubs deregulated the Commerical Mortgage Backed Securities industry so that millions of bad mortgages could be sold at huge profits and when things went wrong, we got the bill for it. That also had consequences.
In one case, the Libs forced "equality" for those who didn't earn it, through regulation.
In the other, The Conservs took all responsibility for screwing investors away from the Corps and Banks, through deregulation.
Bad mix.

The republicans were forced into a huge banking mess by Democrats - especially the housing collapse..

In short, pretty much Bill Clinton and Al Sharpton in 1992 claimed republicans were racists and hated the poor if the congress did not make home loans a "RIGHT."

What the fuck do you think will happen when you lend not on financial income but on race or lack of income???

Forcing banks to pretty much lend to people they will never recover the money from is a BAD FUCKING IDEA...

This is ALL progressives problem - the notion that banks should just buy people free homes and allow them to borrow against them is typical socialism...

The biggest mistake was that republicans actually went along with the plan just so they "didn't look like racists."

Then Bush tried to stop it and he was called a racist while Barney Frank claimed there were no problems and the program was perfectly sound...

Few months later we collapsed...

Republicans are guilty of passing ALL CRA amendments - that's it...

Yes, yes um those were very nice rants. Of course, I already said all that about the Dems but I understand why you are so hysterical.
I didn't say that everything on Earth is the fault of Dems and that the Republicans are good and sweet and pure in every way... LOL!
Well it's nice to have entertainment, if not objectivity in the posts here...

Yea ya did....