Romney

[Avorysuds]

WOW- you're one of those who attack without facts or an argument to debate... Are you an Obamabot too?

The sub-prime mortgages were a bad idea, but as long as the person had a job they were sustainable. The economy was weakening in the middle of 2007 and by mid 2008 we were seriously shedding jobs. When people lost their jobs, they couldn't pay the mortgage and defaults happened.

Now, this is fine in a normal situation. But the banks had bundled the mortgages and sold them and bundled them and sold them, etc. until you couldn't extract the bad ones. So when the defaults happened, all the assets had to be devalued because no one could identify just the sub-primes.

Why was this allowed to happen? Well, the GOP Congress in 1999 repealed the Glass-Steagal Act so banks were free to do all this stupid shit. The total number of sub-prime mortgages went from 5% in 2000 to 30% in 2008, and they were all bundled and sold and were in a mess.

So there you go. It wasn't the sub-primes defaulting, it was the fact the banks could no longer separate those mortgages out for devaluing that brought the whole house of cards down.

And now that I've explained that, care to take another stab at how this is all Obama's fault?

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[15] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[16] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999


Yeah it's wiki lol - Glass

Owned, give up, you're dumb and just face fucked yourself.

 

[Avorysuds]

Interesting slip there. House of Republicans. Maybe it wasn't a slip though.

And yes, I absolutely believe that because it happened. Those of us who followed the news and the negotiations know this.

It was a slip... I guess, I dono I'm not a Republican adn don't give a shit. Draw from it waht you want lol.

And SEE! That is how fringe ass crazy you are! Rand Paul gave a budget that balanced the budget in 5 fucking years with a 19 billion dollar surplus... What part of THAT made it into the budget the President put his name on???? Or are you going to flip flop and drop the Bonehard's "I got 98% of what I wanted" bullshit when he ain't no fuckin Tea party and Obama got 100% of what he wanted being he put his fuckin name on it.


Owned again~ =D

I literally have no idea what you just tried to say there. But, as for the budget, I could balance the budget next year by eliminating all Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Big deal! Does that make that a good budget that we should honestly talk about? No. I could also balance the budget by doubling everyone's taxes. Do you want that? Hey, it's an idea right? So we are required to talk about it right?

The TPers in Congress are the reason we got downgraded.

Like I said, you're a Troll, I spammed that Rand Paul budget at you and many others and Rand said it did not touch MC/MC/SS... But it did end wars so of course Obama never even looked at it and of course you hate it.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Owned, give up, you're dumb and just face fucked yourself.

Uhm, what? You just proved my point. The GOP passed it. It had a veto proof majority after being reconciled.

So ... what's your point?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Like I said, you're a Troll, I spammed that Rand Paul budget at you and many others and Rand said it did not touch MC/MC/SS... But it did end wars so of course Obama never even looked at it and of course you hate it.

/sigh

So? What else is in the budget? Did it slash all discretionary spending and eliminate the military? You know you can balance the budget that way. Should we have a discussion about that now?

Or do you want to join the rest of the adults and talk about real ideas?

 

[Avorysuds]

Owned, give up, you're dumb and just face fucked yourself.

Uhm, what? You just proved my point. The GOP passed it. It had a veto proof majority after being reconciled.

So ... what's your point?

And like a Troll you still lie to stir shit up... It passed with almost all Democrats and almost all Republicans on board, not one sided at you pretend, the bill was changed and went to the Democrat President CLINTON who put his name on it...

Owned, lol@u.

 

[Missourian]

Romney, in his own words:

Q: As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country.



A: Let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I’ve been governor in a pretty tough state. You’ve heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.

Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

Mitt Romney on Gun Control
​

States do have the right to regulate firearms. Do you have any proof that Romney would attempt federal legislation- did he not say that he supports the 2nd amendment? Are you saying that states do not have the right to regulate firearms?

More importantly, does his action as governor of a state that wanted to legislate assault weapon restrictions, prevent his ability from helping our economy- anymore then his position on gay marriage does? I do not foresee Romney going after gun legislation as president- it just does not ring true as being an objective he would have.

In fact, I do.

Once again, his own words...in technicolor:

[youtube]wgZ6AuHnmk0[/youtube]


I would have signed it.

Here is the video in it's entirety...I don't want anyone to claim the above is an example of clever editing:

[youtube]F9Ygw9CQ9po&NR=1[/youtube]


​

 

[Avorysuds]

Owned, give up, you're dumb and just face fucked yourself.

Uhm, what? You just proved my point. The GOP passed it. It had a veto proof majority after being reconciled.

So ... what's your point?

The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999

You could not be any more wrong, literally.

It passed and went to the President just as I provided... Meaning GS was repealed by Republicans/Democrats and Clinton (Democrat.) There is no, none, zero debate to be had.

And to think you argue that the minority, a very small group of people... the Tea Party guys in the house held the country hostage but you can't admit that Dems and the Dem President had just as much to do with GS being repealed when they had MANY more votes, like 10x more votes worth of power... Hell, I could prove the Democrats repelaed GS on their own with your insaine logic, but I won;t because that would make me like partisian and stupid.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You could not be any more wrong, literally.

It passed and went to the President just as I provided... Meaning GS was repealed by Republicans/Democrats and Clinton (Democrat.) There is no, none, zero debate to be had.

You really need to read up on how our system of government works.

 

[Avorysuds]

You could not be any more wrong, literally.

It passed and went to the President just as I provided... Meaning GS was repealed by Republicans/Democrats and Clinton (Democrat.) There is no, none, zero debate to be had.

You really need to read up on how our system of government works.

And you need to start selling your windmills...

 

[clevergirl]

Romney, in his own words:

Q: As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country.



A: Let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I’ve been governor in a pretty tough state. You’ve heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.

Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

Mitt Romney on Gun Control
​

States do have the right to regulate firearms. Do you have any proof that Romney would attempt federal legislation- did he not say that he supports the 2nd amendment? Are you saying that states do not have the right to regulate firearms?

More importantly, does his action as governor of a state that wanted to legislate assault weapon restrictions, prevent his ability from helping our economy- anymore then his position on gay marriage does? I do not foresee Romney going after gun legislation as president- it just does not ring true as being an objective he would have.

In fact, I do.

Once again, his own words...in technicolor:

[youtube]wgZ6AuHnmk0[/youtube]


I would have signed it.

Here is the video in it's entirety...I don't want anyone to claim the above is an example of clever editing:

[youtube]F9Ygw9CQ9po&NR=1[/youtube]


​

And I have to say- in it's entirety you got a non contradictory concise answer that supports a consistent position. He did not go out looking to create gun legislation. He signed legislation that was a "coming together" of both sides in his state. He did not campaign for such, or on such, policy. He was clear that were there good legislation that had "passed" congress he would sign it- sounds like he understands his role and that of congress very well- that fight over legislation happens in congress.

So, again, how does this in anyway effect how he would be in getting the engine of our economy going?

"I do support the Second Amendment. I would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-gun lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to--to have guns for their own legal purposes. So we signed that in Massachusetts, and I’d support that at the federal level. It did not pass at the federal level. I do not believe we need new legislation. I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. We have laws in place that, if they’re implemented & enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have "

 

[MoistTrout]

Romney does not stand a chance.

The southern states will not vote for a Mormon.

And in 2008 your stereotypes might have said southern states would not vote for a black man. How'd that work out?

 

[MoistTrout]

I know that many of my fellow republican's are not keen on Romney. I admit that at first I was not so much either- Then I started listening to him. The guy is just what we need in this economic climate. His ideas WILL work at jump-starting the economy. He understands what kind of policy and legislation is necessary to loosen the purse strings of business and investors.

Does it really matter if he's anti gay marriage? Is gay marriage really what's driving our economic downturn?

We have had 4 years of charm and charisma- Obama the perfect representation of an empty suit. Perry is a loose cannon; Paul is an ideological theorist, important voice- with unrealistic positions. Bachmann IMO is not proving real leadership when she backs down from questions about her evangelicalism and uses TEA Party affiliation as her own personal voting block.

I think Romney understands that the priority needs to be the economy. That he knows exactly how to implement the necessary repairs to start our economic engine.

I do like Romney, and one of the main reasons is his economic ideas. Gay marriage, same sex marriage, whatever you want to call it really doesn't matter to me. At the moment it's still not an actual federal issue and it shouldn't be. All marriage laws are at the state level.

I think Romney understands the job as well, so some of what he did at the state level won't apply to the presidency. If you look back as far as Thomas Jefferson and what he did as president as opposed to what he did as governor of Virginia it looks like he contradicts himself. The fact of the matter is he understood there was a difference between heading the federal government and heading the state government.

I'm sure there will be people nationwide that take issue with his religion (not just in the South), but there were people that took issue with Obama's race, Clinton dodging the draft, Reagan's age, etc. Every elected president has had something that made them "unelectable".

 

[Missourian]

States do have the right to regulate firearms. Do you have any proof that Romney would attempt federal legislation- did he not say that he supports the 2nd amendment? Are you saying that states do not have the right to regulate firearms?

More importantly, does his action as governor of a state that wanted to legislate assault weapon restrictions, prevent his ability from helping our economy- anymore then his position on gay marriage does? I do not foresee Romney going after gun legislation as president- it just does not ring true as being an objective he would have.

In fact, I do.

Once again, his own words...in technicolor:

[youtube]wgZ6AuHnmk0[/youtube]


I would have signed it.

Here is the video in it's entirety...I don't want anyone to claim the above is an example of clever editing:

[youtube]F9Ygw9CQ9po&NR=1[/youtube]


​

And I have to say- in it's entirety you got a non contradictory concise answer that supports a consistent position. He did not go out looking to create gun legislation. He signed legislation that was a "coming together" of both sides in his state. He did not campaign for such, or on such, policy. He was clear that were there good legislation that had "passed" congress he would sign it- sounds like he understands his role and that of congress very well- that fight over legislation happens in congress.

So, again, how does this in anyway effect how he would be in getting the engine of our economy going?

"I do support the Second Amendment. I would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-gun lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to--to have guns for their own legal purposes. So we signed that in Massachusetts, and I’d support that at the federal level. It did not pass at the federal level. I do not believe we need new legislation. I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. We have laws in place that, if they’re implemented & enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have "

It's just one of many examples of Romney's positions on issues being as pliable as silly putty.

He'll say and do whatever it takes to get him into office, and then he will say or do whatever he believes is necessary to keep himself there.

That my opinion...supported by the facts.

 

[dblack]

I do think that as a business man he will work to create policy that is pro business and THAT is what we really need right now. All other issues can wait for another day- but what we need is that other day. All the peripheral issues that can matter in a normal election cycle are simply unimportant given the economic quagmire we are in. So who is best suited to tackle that problem? When I forgot all the peripheral issues and just looked through that lens-Romney stood out.

Well, the last thing I want to see is government ran like a business. But even if I agreed with you on that point, again I have to ask - what leads you to believe he would do any of the things he says? Why do you think he would be any more honest than Obama? OR Bush?

 

[clevergirl]

I do think that as a business man he will work to create policy that is pro business and THAT is what we really need right now. All other issues can wait for another day- but what we need is that other day. All the peripheral issues that can matter in a normal election cycle are simply unimportant given the economic quagmire we are in. So who is best suited to tackle that problem? When I forgot all the peripheral issues and just looked through that lens-Romney stood out.

Well, the last thing I want to see is government ran like a business. But even if I agreed with you on that point, again I have to ask - what leads you to believe he would do any of the things he says? Why do you think he would be any more honest than Obama? OR Bush?

I am not asking for, nor saying that, Romney is going to run government like a business. What I am saying is, that due to his understanding of business, he knows what government can do to get the business engine running again. And I do want a president that can do that...as I am sure you do as well.

 

[clevergirl]

In fact, I do.

Once again, his own words...in technicolor:

[youtube]wgZ6AuHnmk0[/youtube]


I would have signed it.

Here is the video in it's entirety...I don't want anyone to claim the above is an example of clever editing:

[youtube]F9Ygw9CQ9po&NR=1[/youtube]


​

And I have to say- in it's entirety you got a non contradictory concise answer that supports a consistent position. He did not go out looking to create gun legislation. He signed legislation that was a "coming together" of both sides in his state. He did not campaign for such, or on such, policy. He was clear that were there good legislation that had "passed" congress he would sign it- sounds like he understands his role and that of congress very well- that fight over legislation happens in congress.

So, again, how does this in anyway effect how he would be in getting the engine of our economy going?

"I do support the Second Amendment. I would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-gun lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to--to have guns for their own legal purposes. So we signed that in Massachusetts, and I’d support that at the federal level. It did not pass at the federal level. I do not believe we need new legislation. I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. We have laws in place that, if they’re implemented & enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have "

It's just one of many examples of Romney's positions on issues being as pliable as silly putty.

He'll say and do whatever it takes to get him into office, and then he will say or do whatever he believes is necessary to keep himself there.

That my opinion...supported by the facts.

I do not see that you have shown that all- The full version of his video made clear who and what he is with regards to gun legislation- I do not see any silly putty behavior. You can disagree with him on the merit of his statements or agree- but he has been consistent with his position... That said, even politicians, can reconsider previously held positions.

 

[dblack]

Well, the last thing I want to see is government ran like a business.

I am not asking for, nor saying that, Romney is going to run government like a business. What I am saying is, that due to his understanding of business, he knows what government can do to get the business engine running again. And I do want a president that can do that...as I am sure you do as well.

No, actually I don't. I don't want a government preoccupied with mashing the gas on GDP. I want a government that worries about matters of justice and protects our freedom to live the way we want. One that stays out of the way and allows each of us the freedom to pursue our own version of the good life - not one that defines the good life for us and pushes us to adopt it.

IN any case, that's a sidetrack from the point I was trying to make about Romney. To repeat: "But even if I agreed with you on that point, again I have to ask - what leads you to believe he would do any of the things he says? Why do you think he would be any more honest than Obama? OR Bush?"

 

[Toro]

President Romney.

 

[Unkotare]

Romney does not stand a chance.

The southern states will not vote for a Mormon.

vs obama? Of course they will.

 

[Truthmatters]

I do think that as a business man he will work to create policy that is pro business and THAT is what we really need right now. All other issues can wait for another day- but what we need is that other day. All the peripheral issues that can matter in a normal election cycle are simply unimportant given the economic quagmire we are in. So who is best suited to tackle that problem? When I forgot all the peripheral issues and just looked through that lens-Romney stood out.

Well, the last thing I want to see is government ran like a business. But even if I agreed with you on that point, again I have to ask - what leads you to believe he would do any of the things he says? Why do you think he would be any more honest than Obama? OR Bush?

I am not asking for, nor saying that, Romney is going to run government like a business. What I am saying is, that due to his understanding of business, he knows what government can do to get the business engine running again. And I do want a president that can do that...as I am sure you do as well.

They have economic advisers that are of more use than any personal experience.

Believe it or not they actually have places where people learn the entire history of the worlds economy over mans past.

They learn all about ALL known economic thought.

Crazy huh?

Its called college and there are some that are Really teaching people alot about everything.


Ever heard of them?