Don't like Obama, fine, but why the dishonesty?

[Dr Grump]

Note to Gregg:

Epic Trolls on USMB with regard to Obama:

Alliebaba
Americano
Boedicca
Claudette
CMike
Contumacious
CrusaderFrank
Namvet
Malcontent
Granny
Ihopehefails
Sinatra
JenyEliza
Willowtree
Pixiestix
Lonestrar Logic
Lumpy 1
Kee keee
Kman
Liability
LibocalypseNow
Marc39
Meister
Mr Fitnah
Dude
Cesspit
PoliticalChic
Publius
RSG
the Kook (erasbil)
Titanic Sailor
Screaming Eagle
Gautama
Patek
SFC Ollie
Sitarro
Terry
The Rabbi
Tom Clancy
txlonghorn
US Army Retired
Wicked Jester

Now, while this list may seem large (and I've probably missed a couple), there are enough normal cons on here you can have a yarn with, and half decent convo most times. I like to think we've attracted all the right-wing whackos to the USMB so they can all wallow....

I see your keeping a list of all the conservatives who have kicked your ass in debate.

Man, you sure have gotten your ass kicked by a lot of people, lil' one!

Oh yeah. and just to remind you. Obama's an epic failure on ALL fronts.

Wouldn't want you to forget that!

Ya' can thank me later!

Sure, I've had my arse kicked by conservatives before. On this board, too. But no one on the above list....

 

[Dr Grump]

Id say partially responsible for 9/11, but Reagan and Bush I played a part as well to be fair..........

The housing bubble?

In large measure the Clinton administration , due to regulations established in the early 1990's which pressured banks to extend billions of dollars to non-credit worthy borrowers. Its not even debatable........and of course Republicans werent going to say sh!t and get pigeonholed for being racist. It was a no-lose for the Dums.

LOL so despite the fact that republicans controlled the white house and congress years and did NOTHING to prevent what righties say that tehy predicted would happen it's all clinton's and the dems fault. LOL

Like I said, they like to TALK about and preach personal responsibility to others but never apply that same standard to themselves ot their own party.

Republicans CHOSE to do nothing but it's the democrats fault. LOL The democrats may be screwing up the passage of the health bills but at least they tried which is more than can be said for the republicans and the housing bust.

you may want to go back and look who signed the bills into law deregulating lending practices.....you may want to go back and look who proposed a bill to re regulate lending and who blocked it.....

Reagan in 1984 - building societies....

 

[Dr Grump]

How is it that when George Bush was president EVERYTHING was ultimately his responsibility but we shouldn't hold Obama to the same standard? Why not?

But it wasn't. Every messageboard I went on during George II's reign, every time something went pear shaped it was Clinton's fault according to the cons..

 

[Meister]

Most european nations have a lot more socialism than our country, Grump...agreed/ I'm not saying a Marxist style, but I'm saying heavy government taxes for heavy government influence in those nations....would you say that is a fiar statement?

Dunno...depends what you call socialism. I think your govt interferes in a lot of ways - not just with its own people...

That's why I don't trust my government, Grump. I feel we need to keep them on a short leash, and it's not happening.

 

[Dr Grump]

Most european nations have a lot more socialism than our country, Grump...agreed/ I'm not saying a Marxist style, but I'm saying heavy government taxes for heavy government influence in those nations....would you say that is a fiar statement?

Dunno...depends what you call socialism. I think your govt interferes in a lot of ways - not just with its own people...

That's why I don't trust my government, Grump. I feel we need to keep them on a short leash, and it's not happening.

Fair enough...

Americans seem a lot more passionate about their govt than we do.
Dunno whether that is because your system is so fucked and so much wrong with it that is needs fixing, or if we're just more (a)pathetic...

 

[Meister]

Dunno...depends what you call socialism. I think your govt interferes in a lot of ways - not just with its own people...

That's why I don't trust my government, Grump. I feel we need to keep them on a short leash, and it's not happening.

Fair enough...

Americans seem a lot more passionate about their govt than we do.
Dunno whether that is because your system is so fucked and so much wrong with it that is needs fixing, or if we're just more (a)pathetic...

I feel our government is pushing for a nanny state, and Americans aren't buying in to it. Our politicians have shown that it really isn't about the people, but it's about the power. Obama has shown this when he has been driving his policy agenda over trying to get people back to work. His priorities are screwed up IMO

 

[Dr Grump]

I feel our government is pushing for a nanny state, and Americans aren't buying in to it. Our politicians have shown that it really isn't about the people, but it's about the power. Obama has shown this when he has been driving his policy agenda over trying to get people back to work. His priorities are screwed up IMO

The US probably needs to go back to state level govt in a lot of cases.

As an observation from the outside, it seems the country has gotten too big (population) and the fed government isn't taking states' individual needs into account. For example, Utah with its huge Mormon population probably has different needs from the South Western States with their Hispanic populations, ditto north east with its European populations...Prolly in the too hard basket..

 

[Meister]

I feel our government is pushing for a nanny state, and Americans aren't buying in to it. Our politicians have shown that it really isn't about the people, but it's about the power. Obama has shown this when he has been driving his policy agenda over trying to get people back to work. His priorities are screwed up IMO

The US probably needs to go back to state level govt in a lot of cases.

As an observation from the outside, it seems the country has gotten too big (population) and the fed government isn't taking states' individual needs into account. For example, Utah with its huge Mormon population probably has different needs from the South Western States with their Hispanic populations, ditto north east with its European populations...Prolly in the too hard basket..

I couldn't agree with you more, Grump

 

[Meister]

I feel our government is pushing for a nanny state, and Americans aren't buying in to it. Our politicians have shown that it really isn't about the people, but it's about the power. Obama has shown this when he has been driving his policy agenda over trying to get people back to work. His priorities are screwed up IMO

The US probably needs to go back to state level govt in a lot of cases.

As an observation from the outside, it seems the country has gotten too big (population) and the fed government isn't taking states' individual needs into account. For example, Utah with its huge Mormon population probably has different needs from the South Western States with their Hispanic populations, ditto north east with its European populations...Prolly in the too hard basket..

I have felt that the state governments need more authority in their state than the feds in the states. Politicians in DC haven't a clue on what's going on in Mt. or Wy., nor do they really care because there just isn't that many people in those kind of states. Our government has become a business of getting re elected. They're all jockeying for position in the next election, and not taking care of business.

 

[Dr Grump]

I have felt that the state governments need more authority in their state than the feds in the states. Politicians in DC haven't a clue on what's going on in Mt. or Wy., nor do they really care because there just isn't that many people in those kind of states. Our government has become a business of getting re elected. They're all jockeying for position in the next election, and not taking care of business.

This is why you guys seem so cynical about your system. Having posted on messageboards for the best part of nine years now - and to a lot of Americans - I can't help but feel a viable third party would do the country good. Whether it be left, right or centrist, it would get rid of the complacency. I remember seeing James Baker interviewed some time ago (at least 10 years) about US politics and he said he was a fan of the two party system. He thought (and I'm paraphrasing here) that there was enough of a difference in the parties to give people two viable options, and any third party would just be a derivative of one of the other two. I disagree. I thought Perot showed there was a viable third option. Probably need to win a few state senate seats then build from there. It is possible....

What it would do is put the two big players on notice....

 

[Meister]

I have felt that the state governments need more authority in their state than the feds in the states. Politicians in DC haven't a clue on what's going on in Mt. or Wy., nor do they really care because there just isn't that many people in those kind of states. Our government has become a business of getting re elected. They're all jockeying for position in the next election, and not taking care of business.

This is why you guys seem so cynical about your system. Having posted on messageboards for the best part of nine years now - and to a lot of Americans - I can't help but feel a viable third party would do the country good. Whether it be left, right or centrist, it would get rid of the complacency. I remember seeing James Baker interviewed some time ago (at least 10 years) about US politics and he said he was a fan of the two party system. He thought (and I'm paraphrasing here) that there was enough of a difference in the parties to give people two viable options, and any third party would just be a derivative of one of the other two. I disagree. I thought Perot showed there was a viable third option. Probably need to win a few state senate seats then build from there. It is possible....

What it would do is put the two big players on notice....

I'm inclined toagree with you, and a third party would have to start in a Senate or Congressional seat like you said. If it started at the presidency level....that would hurt. Our two parties are are not that far apart anymore in ideology. This is why in the last election the republicans got their butts spanked big time.....they deserved it, and maybe for the short period of time it will do some good, but they will end up repeating their mistakes in the future.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Note to Gregg:

Epic Trolls on USMB with regard to Obama:

Alliebaba
Americano
Boedicca
Claudette
CMike
Contumacious
CrusaderFrank
Namvet
Malcontent
Granny
Ihopehefails
Sinatra
JenyEliza
Willowtree
Pixiestix
Lonestrar Logic
Lumpy 1
Kee keee
Kman
Liability
LibocalypseNow
Marc39
Meister
Mr Fitnah
Dude
Cesspit
PoliticalChic
Publius
RSG
the Kook (erasbil)
Titanic Sailor
Screaming Eagle
Gautama
Patek
SFC Ollie
Sitarro
Terry
The Rabbi
Tom Clancy
txlonghorn
US Army Retired
Wicked Jester

Now, while this list may seem large (and I've probably missed a couple), there are enough normal cons on here you can have a yarn with, and half decent convo most times. I like to think we've attracted all the right-wing whackos to the USMB so they can all wallow....

I see your keeping a list of all the conservatives who have kicked your ass in debate.

Man, you sure have gotten your ass kicked by a lot of people, lil' one!

Oh yeah. and just to remind you. Obama's an epic failure on ALL fronts.

Wouldn't want you to forget that!

Ya' can thank me later!

Sure, I've had my arse kicked by conservatives before. On this board, too. But no one on the above list....

Wow, glad i tuned into this thread, I actually made a list......

 

[Wicked Jester]

I see your keeping a list of all the conservatives who have kicked your ass in debate.

Man, you sure have gotten your ass kicked by a lot of people, lil' one!

Oh yeah. and just to remind you. Obama's an epic failure on ALL fronts.

Wouldn't want you to forget that!

Ya' can thank me later!

Sure, I've had my arse kicked by conservatives before. On this board, too. But no one on the above list....

Wow, glad i tuned into this thread, I actually made a list......

If you made the list Sarge, you must be doing something good!

 

[SFC Ollie]

Sure, I've had my arse kicked by conservatives before. On this board, too. But no one on the above list....

Wow, glad i tuned into this thread, I actually made a list......

If you made the list Sarge, you must be doing something good!

That's the way i see it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Clinton was responsible for 9/11 and the housing bubble.

Id say partially responsible for 9/11, but Reagan and Bush I played a part as well to be fair..........

The housing bubble?

In large measure the Clinton administration , due to regulations established in the early 1990's which pressured banks to extend billions of dollars to non-credit worthy borrowers. Its not even debatable........and of course Republicans werent going to say sh!t and get pigeonholed for being racist. It was a no-lose for the Dums.

They never pressured them to loan to non-credit worthy borrowers. Laws were passed that required banks to stop redlining... which was wholly proper because redlining doesn't make assessments based on credit-worthiness, it makes assessments based on location of the property.

Deregulating banks and allowing them to bundle bad debt didn't help.

I can't even begin to tell you how many re-fi's I did during that time where peopel (NOT MINORITY, SO NOT COVERED BY THE CHANGES PROHIBITING REDLINING) were pulling huge amounts of equity out of their homes and taking out 5-year ARM's. The banks and brokers told those people "don't worry. when the ARM comes due, we'll re-fi you again so your mortage won't go up to ridiculous amounts".

And then the market fell...

and people couldn't re-fi because the equity was no longer equal to the loan they needed...

now, there's something to be said for personal responsibility (personally, you couldn't have paid me enough to take an ARM under those conditions, but that's me) but the banks were responsible for not demanding credit-worthiness (and no, nothing in the law required that they not require buyers to have good credit).

Complete and utter BS sweetie..................every time you talk to a k00k lefty about the housing crisis, they bring up "redlining" and Clinton efforts to curb it. It is complete nonsense!!! Go google it honey...........theres only about 1 million links............even one from the Villiage Voice ( of all sources) that details Clinton Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo's high pressure on banks which led to over 4 million foreclosures.


Clinton Pressure to Promote Affordable Housing Led to Mortgage Meltdown|OpenMarket.org


Check out the link.........places some blame on the Bush Administration but most of the blame for the mortgage mess squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton era. Clinton took the idea of the CRA, started under Carter and used the nuclear option. It was actually brilliant politics by Clinton who new the GOP wouldnt dare go against homes for minorities on the cheap. In Washington, nobody likes to be branded a racist.

 

[antagon]

Id say partially responsible for 9/11, but Reagan and Bush I played a part as well to be fair..........

The housing bubble?

In large measure the Clinton administration , due to regulations established in the early 1990's which pressured banks to extend billions of dollars to non-credit worthy borrowers. Its not even debatable........and of course Republicans werent going to say sh!t and get pigeonholed for being racist. It was a no-lose for the Dums.

They never pressured them to loan to non-credit worthy borrowers. Laws were passed that required banks to stop redlining... which was wholly proper because redlining doesn't make assessments based on credit-worthiness, it makes assessments based on location of the property.

Deregulating banks and allowing them to bundle bad debt didn't help.

I can't even begin to tell you how many re-fi's I did during that time where peopel (NOT MINORITY, SO NOT COVERED BY THE CHANGES PROHIBITING REDLINING) were pulling huge amounts of equity out of their homes and taking out 5-year ARM's. The banks and brokers told those people "don't worry. when the ARM comes due, we'll re-fi you again so your mortage won't go up to ridiculous amounts".

And then the market fell...

and people couldn't re-fi because the equity was no longer equal to the loan they needed...

now, there's something to be said for personal responsibility (personally, you couldn't have paid me enough to take an ARM under those conditions, but that's me) but the banks were responsible for not demanding credit-worthiness (and no, nothing in the law required that they not require buyers to have good credit).

Complete and utter BS sweetie..................every time you talk to a k00k lefty about the housing crisis, they bring up "redlining" and Clinton efforts to curb it. It is complete nonsense!!! Go google it honey...........theres only about 1 million links............even one from the Villiage Voice ( of all sources) that details Clinton Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo's high pressure on banks which led to over 4 million foreclosures.


Clinton Pressure to Promote Affordable Housing Led to Mortgage Meltdown|OpenMarket.org


Check out the link.........places some blame on the Bush Administration but most of the blame for the mortgage mess squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton era. Clinton took the idea of the CRA, started under Carter and used the nuclear option. It was actually brilliant politics by Clinton who new the GOP wouldnt dare go against homes for minorities on the cheap. In Washington, nobody likes to be branded a racist.

you'll have to be slow to think the CRA is behind the mortgage crisis.... that is you'd have to be misinformed as to think that the majority of foreclosures are within redlined areas in inner-cities or even close. you'd have to be insular and ignorant to the numerous private-sector executives who admit they'd directed their firms to make a run on high-risk debt... you'd have to be obtuse in the face of the role secondary, futures markets played in 'securing' these risky transactions clear up until the music stopped with northern rock.

but that's typical of tbag cons. blatantly stupid and deafeningly arrogant at once.

just the idea of this 'pressuring' is a concept which no one with any understanding of the real world would buy.

hook, line, sinker to cheap political bait. look at that source!

 

[BolshevikHunter]

There are plenty things that people could find Obama not doing a good job in.So why do so many on this forum and other places have to lie, exaggerate, and make shit up about Obama? Why call him socialist, marxist, the "messiah", "owebama", claim he isn't a US citizen, claims he want to destroy america? or claim things done by other people is really Obama's doing, and anything that goes on in the gov't or military is under Obama's direction?

YOu totally discredit any point you may have when you resort to such Glenn Beck/Rush type absurd attacks and arguments. You just look like some stupid, childish, partisan hack nutjob when you do so.

Probably because some figure that this lunatic madman need's to be stopped at all costs. If it saves America from him and his disgusting vermin master Rahm Emanuel, So be it. ~BH

 

[Wicked Jester]

Id say partially responsible for 9/11, but Reagan and Bush I played a part as well to be fair..........

The housing bubble?

In large measure the Clinton administration , due to regulations established in the early 1990's which pressured banks to extend billions of dollars to non-credit worthy borrowers. Its not even debatable........and of course Republicans werent going to say sh!t and get pigeonholed for being racist. It was a no-lose for the Dums.

They never pressured them to loan to non-credit worthy borrowers. Laws were passed that required banks to stop redlining... which was wholly proper because redlining doesn't make assessments based on credit-worthiness, it makes assessments based on location of the property.

Deregulating banks and allowing them to bundle bad debt didn't help.

I can't even begin to tell you how many re-fi's I did during that time where peopel (NOT MINORITY, SO NOT COVERED BY THE CHANGES PROHIBITING REDLINING) were pulling huge amounts of equity out of their homes and taking out 5-year ARM's. The banks and brokers told those people "don't worry. when the ARM comes due, we'll re-fi you again so your mortage won't go up to ridiculous amounts".

And then the market fell...

and people couldn't re-fi because the equity was no longer equal to the loan they needed...

now, there's something to be said for personal responsibility (personally, you couldn't have paid me enough to take an ARM under those conditions, but that's me) but the banks were responsible for not demanding credit-worthiness (and no, nothing in the law required that they not require buyers to have good credit).

Complete and utter BS sweetie..................every time you talk to a k00k lefty about the housing crisis, they bring up "redlining" and Clinton efforts to curb it. It is complete nonsense!!! Go google it honey...........theres only about 1 million links............even one from the Villiage Voice ( of all sources) that details Clinton Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo's high pressure on banks which led to over 4 million foreclosures.


Clinton Pressure to Promote Affordable Housing Led to Mortgage Meltdown|OpenMarket.org


Check out the link.........places some blame on the Bush Administration but most of the blame for the mortgage mess squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton era. Clinton took the idea of the CRA, started under Carter and used the nuclear option. It was actually brilliant politics by Clinton who new the GOP wouldnt dare go against homes for minorities on the cheap. In Washington, nobody likes to be branded a racist.

Yep skook buddy, libsarekooks!

 

[Harry Dresden]

You just look like some stupid, childish, partisan hack nutjob when you do so.

you look this way every time you post Gregg.....christ every time i see one of your threads you start off by attacking everyone who may have a different opinion...and then you act like everyone is being childish when they give you the same shit back....you even did this in your introduction post.....your not only a Hack and a Troll.....your fucking idiot....

 

[xotoxi]

I don't like his use of the english language as a tool to say one thing but lead people to believe another...and then when he is approcahed with the contradiction, he reminds people of what he said..and clarifies it...making himself right everytime.

Essentially, you are saying that you don't like POLITICIANS.