Think about this...

Jump to Last Post 51-75 of 75 discussions (401 posts)

60
BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years ago
And wilderness is right the camera thing doesn't work.
reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago
(-but, it is hip and cool to be on the left. As it was in the 70's.
They were the "freaks and hairies" that occupied Hollywood and Sunset Blvd. circa 1969, here in So Cal. I was only 14 at the time and was awestruck when my parents brought me on a stroll along Sunset one day that year! Of course, later I emulated the hippie look, not understanding what they stood for. I only knew I was supposed to be cool and hip.
It seems to be a problem of the youth. Youth is so wasted on the youth!)
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Statistically speaking people move further to the left throughout their lives but do not move as fast as society hence the elderly are statistically more conservative than the general population despite becoming more liberal throughout their lifetime simply because they are left behind by the pace of change.
  
  Studies proving it:
  http://news.discovery.com/human/psychol … 120119.htm
  http://www.livescience.com/2360-busting … l-age.html
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I really do not know why you bother. You believe your internet sources are so great as far as evidence, but look around you! Talk to people my age and older and you will understand what I'm talking about. Those who bought into the left agenda pretty much killed themselves off with drug use. Those that have survived were not of the left or left the left. Thats my take and I am not going to look at your references, if that is okay with you.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Facts are facts, I don't know why you bother opining without being aware of them.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I opine of my own experience, real life. REAL LIFE
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No not real life, your personal flawed and unrepresentative view of it, no match nor replacement for broad scientific study based on actual data. That is what separates opinion from fact.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  we'll see... I just posted a pertinent Forum
  (...if there are any baby boomers my age even participating in these forums! I doubt it much, however. They have better things to do.)
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  link?
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  *See new Forum post.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What new forum post? Nothing by you in Politics and Social Issues
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  See Community News
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sources please! And not personal experiences either. That is too narrow a picture.
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I am your age or older, Kathryn and I don't see this great gap between your opinion based on your life experiences verses more universally applied solid scientific evidence and data.
  
  So, I have seen that movie, too........
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So what you have experienced in your life is meaningless and we are supposed to hope the "scientific data" is not faked like they did when they put sensors closer to heat sources to make things appear warmer.
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So, why are your experiences any more valid than mine, or anyone else's for that matter. Where is the proof that a discovery is not substantiated beyond your immediate perception?
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't say your experiences were invalid but your statement rather puts forth that one's experiences are meaningless if someone has a set of numbers of some sort.
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I did not mean to imply that your experiences or mine are meaningless, but what I accept as established fact has to include more than any one's indivudual experiences. For me to accept something as 'fact' requires just a bit more....
  reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
"You have no evidence that he's (Obama) actually done anything that advances anything even remotely resembling a radical leftist agenda."

At the present rate, Obama will have spent more by the time he gets out of office than all the other presidents combined, including George W. bush, whom he accuse of being unpatriotic for spending $4 trillion, in 8 years 'all by his lonesome'. Obama has already spent $7 trillion in just over 4 years, mostly on wealth redistribution..

He's spending us into bankruptcy. He's as radical as they come
reply report
1. 83
  donotfearposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yep.........sure looks that way.
  reply report
2. 61
  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  But that doesn't make him a left winger.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No, it really doesn't.
  
  Sure, he's spending. He's spending because we need to continue functioning as a country. The deficit is big precisely because of W's unfunded wars and irresponsible tax cuts going into them, and nobody in Washington has the stones to let those stupid, irresponsible tax cuts expire.
  
  But WillStarr still hasn't presented any evidence that Obama is a radical leftist.
  
  How about you list some of his radical leftist accomplishments for us, Will?
  reply report
3. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  US deficit for last budget created by Bush administration (budget for 2009) 1.41 trillion, Deficit for latest Obama administration Budget 901 Billion, Obama has cut half a trillion from the deficit in his time in office.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why did you ignore what I said?
  
  Bush's deficit wasn't actually that high.
  reply report
4. 70
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You apparently haven't noticed that the "wealth redistribution" in recent years has been from the middle class to the ultra-rich. The inequality of wealth and income in this country now resembles a South American dictatorship or Russia.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Which South American dictatorship or Russia would you say has an equal average standard of living, particularly with regard to wealth? Homes, cars, TV's, saved money, etc.?
  reply report
  70
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The growing inequality of wealth and income in this country is causing increasing numbers of people to lose faith in our democratic, free enterprise system. Several other countries have much greater equality of income distribution and higher per capita GDP, not to mention much better health care at a fraction of the cost in this country.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Those would be the ones rated as being more prosperous on the Legatum Group's prosperity index.
  reply report
  70
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  My comment went to inequality of income and wealth distribution. No South American country equals the U.S. in average income. According to Forbes the richest man in the world is Carlos Slim Helu, a Mexican. He's followed by Gates and Buffett.
  reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
Josak,

The Debt accumulated by all presidents combined was $10 trillion when Obama took office.

He has added another $7 trillion in just four years by himself. He owns it now, and can no longer blame Bush. Neither can you.
reply report
1. 70
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Obama was saddled with Bush's recession which greatly reduced tax receipts on top of a big tax cut for the rich, with two costly wars, an unfunded Medicare drug program written by drug lobbyists, not to mention the need to spend money to bail out the banks and auto companies and stimulate the economy to avert a depression.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. Two unfunded wars which he pledged to end but has continued to increase the cost of.
  
  An unfunded Medicare program to be replaced with a severely underfunded Obamacare package that will absolutely dwarf it.
  reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
"Obama was saddled with Bush's recession..."

When are you Obama apologists ever going to stop blaming Bush?

Not to mention that the Democrats caused the recession with Freddie, Fannie, the CRA, and making home loans to people who could never pay them back.

Bush didn't cause the recession...Democrats did!
reply report
1. 70
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, Will. You'd better read up on that one. There's plenty of blame to go around for the worldwide recession, Republicans and Democrats. I agree that although the crash came on Bush's watch, others were to blame as well. However, Clinton handed him a healthy economy and a balanced budget. Clinton should never have allowed the Glass-Steagall Act to be repealed. I'll bet he wishes he'd never signed the bill.
  reply report
2. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not to mention that the Democrats caused the recession with Freddie, Fannie, the CRA, and making home loans to people who could never pay them back.
  
  An old lie, and an obvious one. Nobody forced any mortgage company to make loans to people who couldn't pay them off. Nobody forced mortgage companies to bundle those loans into mortgage-backed securities, lie about their riskiness, and sell them to unsuspecting investors, but they did it anyway. Nobody forced banks to write riskier and riskier loans to satisfy the demand for (fraudulent) mortgage-backed securities, but they did.
  Your post is a lie. You might genuinely believe it, which means you're not necessarily a deliberate liar, but you're certainly saying something that isn't true.
  
  Educate yourself before you embarrass yourself by repeating this ignorant nonsense again.
  reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
"Sorry, Will. You'd better read up on that one."

Oh?

Have you forgotten already that the housing bubble, caused the increased demand based on the bad loans backed by Freddie and Fannnie, finally burst, followed by the collapse of Freddie and Fannie, and the domino collapses of the hundreds of lending institutions left high and dry by the loss of Freddie and Fannie?

The Democrats and the media blamed Bush, and they got away with it, for the most part, but yes, the Democrats directly caused the recession of 2008 by meddling in the housing market.

You'd rather blame Bush, Ralph, but like the other libs, you never tell us why it was Bush's fault. I just told you who caused it, and how.
reply report
1. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You must be feeling a burning sensation in your trousers right about now.
  
  I just [lied to] you [about] who caused it, and how.
  reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
Read all about it (or is anyone who disagrees with you a 'liar'?):

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc … nk/249903/
reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
To the left, big government is never wrong, and capitalism is never right.

Government meddling in the housing market resulted in its ultimate collapse, but the left will never admit it, labeling anyone who points it out as a 'liar'.
reply report
1. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Only because they're liars.
  
  Big government didn't commit fraud; the capitalists did that all on their own.
  
  Note that this does not make capitalism wrong. Rather, the capitalists who committed fraud are criminals--bad acters in an otherwise worthy system.
  
  The government never required anyone to create a single mortgage-backed security, nor did it ever require anyone to lie about the level of risk involved in said securities. That is what caused the housing crisis, and either you know this to be the case and are telling deliberate lies to defend your ideology, or you don't understand the crisis at all and aren't worth listening to anyway.
  reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
Republicans tried to rein in Freddie and Fannie, warning of an imminent collapse, but were attacked by angry Democrats who said both institutions were just fine. Watch the hearings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OtCCJERaIk
reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
"The government never required anyone to create a single mortgage-backed security, nor did it ever require anyone to lie about the level of risk involved in said securities."

A straw man. I never said they required it.

What they did was encourage lenders to make risky loans by buying up any bad debt. By doing that, they created a false demand that drove up prices and encouraged speculators to buy and flip houses. When the bubble finally burst, Fannie and Freddie simply collapsed and the lenders were caught holding the toxic debt.

No one is innocent here, nor did I claim that. But unlike you, I recognize that government (read Democrats) bungling led to the current recession, and as you can see from the article you ignored, so do many others.

In any case, my original statement is absolutely true...this is not George Bush's recession at all, and Obama damn well knows it. He, sir, is your liar.
reply report
1. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "I never said they required it."
  
  So you admit that the lenders created the risky loans all on their own, and bundled those risky loans into mortgage-backed securities all on their own, and lied about the risk involved with those securities all on their own?
  
  Good, then you're placing the blame where it belongs: on the people who wrote the risky loans and defrauded investors by lying about the risk of the securities created from those loans.
  
  Stop pretending the government held a gun to the bankers' heads and made them defraud the people; it just ain't so.
  
  I mean, seriously, I thought conservatives were supposed to be big on personal responsibility. Now you're saying that because Fannie and Freddie bought securities, it's their fault that the banks created more and riskier securities and lied about the risk? That's like saying because people want to buy orange juice, it'd be their fault if Sunkist started watering down the orange juice they sold and lying about the juice content thereof on the label. You're putting the blame on the wrong people.
  
  Or, perhaps you're admitting that the only thing keeping bankers from routinely defrauding their customers/investors is strict--and strictly enforced--regulation?
  
  Because if you blame the bad actions of the bankers on something the government did or didn't do, that's exactly what you're admitting.
  reply report
  70
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Correct.
  reply report
  80
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That's a big 10-4, Jeff
  reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
Jeff,

When someone like you finds it necessary to continually put words in my mouth, it's actually an admission that you know I'm right.

Democrats created the environment that resulted in the housing collapse and the resulting recession that we are still in.

And I can tell by your constant squirming that you know its true.
reply report
1. 61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The Democrats never do anything wrong.
  
  You know that.
  reply report
2. 60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, he knows its true.
  reply report
3. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What squirming? You mean all that bit up there where I destroyed your argument so thoroughly that your only recourse is either to admit your error or to take refuge in a sad state of denial? 'Cos that's what happened just now, and everyone saw it.
  
  Did "Democrats" write risky loans, bundle the loans into risky securities, and sell those securities while hiding the level of risk of said securities?
  
  No, they did not.
  
  Do you agree or disagree that in the absence of coercion, the person who takes a given action is the person responsible for that action?
  
  If yes, then you can't blame anyone for the housing crisis but the people who committed the securities fraud.
  
  If no, then you must concede that strict--and strictly enforced--regulation is needed to prevent people from committing fraud.
  
  If "Democrats" are guilty of anything, it's of complicity in the repeal of Glass-Steagal, which, if left in place, would have made the fraud a lot less easy to commit.
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "If "Democrats" are guilty of anything, it's of complicity in the repeal of Glass-Steagal, which, if left in place, would have made the fraud a lot less easy to commit."
  
  What do you mean "if"? They did exactly that!
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You do know that Glass Steagal was repealed in 1999, right? When the GOP controlled both houses of congress. If Republicans wanted to keep Glass-Steagal in place, they could have done it. Instead, the bill repealing it was introduced by Senator Phill Graham (R), Texas.
  
  Eight Senators voted against its repeal: 7 Democrats and one Republican.
  57 Representatives voted against its repeal: 51 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent.
  
  This is the only thing that you can conceivably blame "Democrats" for, but you can't even really do that, because more Dems realized that this was a bad idea than Republicans did: only one Republican Senator voted against repealing Glass-Steagall (two did not cast a vote), and only five out of 222 GOP Reps voted no (10 didn't vote). So if you want to blame the Dems, you can blame them for not fighting hard enough against the Republican-sponsored repeal of Glass-Steagal. You could blame Clinton for not vetoing the bill, too, I guess, but the bill already had a veto-proof majority (made up of a lot more Republicans than Democrats), so you could also argue that there wouldn't have been much point.
  
  Partisan scoundrels will grasp at any kind of straw to blame the other team for anything bad that happens, and will say darn near anything to try and convince people that their team is blameless.
  
  Luckily, there are these handy things called facts, that exist in the real world, and that rational people can look at and compare to the rantings of the partisan scoundrels, and when we see that they don't match up, we can see who is talking out of their nether orifice, and who is not.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How about if we just blame a stupid if well meaning congress? Instead of the evil banksters that, willingly or unwillingly, accepted the wants of Congress?
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  All we can blame Congress for is the repeal of Glass-Steagal (and perhaps the general trend of deregulation--which has turned out badly).
  
  We can't blame Congress for people who aren't even in Congress committing securities fraud.
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You DO know who signed it into law don't you? Clinton the democrat President. Unless now you want to claim he was a republican.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You obviously aren't even bothering to read the posts you're responding to, because if you'd read my last, you'd know it says:
  
  You could blame Clinton for not vetoing the bill, too, I guess, but the bill already had a veto-proof majority (made up of a lot more Republicans than Democrats), so you could also argue that there wouldn't have been much point.
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  True, didn't read that part. Doesn't change facts already presented.
  
  Democrats did everything they could to prevent regulation!
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The idea of course is to try and make it look like the Republicans and the evil bankers were the only ones with their fingers in the pie.
  
  Just like the sequester......
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The sequester? Oh yeah, the new Bush.
  
  The sequester made Rosie O'Donnell fat
  The sequester causes guns to kill
  The sequester causes Obama to go on vacation
  The sequester made Rachel Maddow ugly
  The sequester sank the Titanic
  
  That damn sequester.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Now we're talking about the sequester? Why change the subject (again)?
  
  Oh, it's cos you've thoroughly lost the argument and are trying to save face, maybe?
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Another false statement.
  
  Count up the numbers. More Democrats than Republicans opposed the deregulation. Or have you decided to pretend that you don't know how to count, now?
  reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
I see I now have three hard core liberals blindly denying the truth, despite the video of Democrats in Congress angrily defending Freddie and Fannie and resisting the regulation that might have prevented the collapse.

You can lead them to water....
reply report
1. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Do you have any video of Democrats committing securities fraud? Nope, 'cos they didn't.
  
  You keep blaming the bad actions of one group of people on an entirely different group of people.
  
  Morally. Bankrupt.
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Are you saying all of the bankers were republican?
  
  Why would anybody have a video of people committing securities fraud?
  
  There is video of democrats doing everything they could to convince the world there was nothing to see. Do you need those videos?
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Are you saying all of the bankers were republican?
  Nope. I'm saying that congressmen didn't commit securities fraud. Bankers did. But Will wants to blame congressmen (and absurdly, only Democratic ones) for a crisis that happened because of bankers committing securities fraud.
  
  Tell me, if I put a pie on my windowsill to cool, and it gets stolen, who is guilty of theft? Me? Or the guy who took the pie?
  
  If your answer is anything other than "The guy who took the pie," then we can understand how you can reach the conclusion that "Democrats" caused the housing crisis: It's because you don't get how responsibility works.
  
  If your answer is "The guy who took the pie," then you're merely living in denial, 'cos you know darn well you're wrong about who's responsible for the housing crisis, and you're just trying to blame the other team because, hey, you gotta blame someone, and bankers don't have to run for reelection. But if you can convince people that the fault lies with the Democrats (even if you have to ignore basic morality to do it), then woohoo!
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Morally bankrupt? Really?
  
  You have the stones to say that standing behind a party who has as one of their biggest heroes a man who brought about the death of a woman he was philandering with and oh yes walks away from the situation?
  
  Don't preach to people about their morals Jeff. Straighten the Donkeys out first.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "You have the stones to say that "
  
  Yes, I do. And I stand behind it.
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Great. Your hero is a murderer.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  [citation needed]
  
  Who are you even talking about?
  
  Stop making stuff up to win arguments (it's both dishonest and ineffective).
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sen. Edward Kennedy deceased
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He's not my hero; nice use of the strawman gambit.
  
  Morally. Bankrupt.
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That man is an icon of the Party you stand behind.
  You said so yourself.
  But you don't care about HIS moral bankruptcy.....nor does the rest of leftdom....because he is after all who he is.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not a murderer, morally bankrupt maybe but that certainly isn't relevant to democrat politics, the guy is dead for christ sakes. No more than the Republican party is evil because of say Nixon.
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Lets see, drove drunk and off of a bridge resulting in the death of a young girl, yes murder.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not caring too much about a millionaire playboy but no court would find a verdict of murder in those circumstances, unless of course you can prove that he deliberately got drunk so that he would crash his car and kill her!
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah obviously you don't know what murder is.
  
  mur·der
  /ˈmərdər/
  Noun
  The unlawful, intentional, killing of one human being by another.
  
  This act was not intentional, it is in fact manslaughter or death caused by reckless action.
  
  man·slaugh·ter
  /ˈmanˌslôtər/
  Noun
  The crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Its more obvious that you support a murderer! Why?
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  *sigh*
  
  I don't support him (he is dead anyway) and he is also factually speaking not a murderer.
  report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are still supporting the dead murderer. Why?
  report
  76
  psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "The unlawful, ***intentional*** , killing of one human being by another."
  report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not very good lawyers, each state can decide what meets the elements of a particular crime. Definitions are what the state says they are not a dictionary!
  report
  76
  psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You still need to do it on purpose rather than by accident, regardless of state.
  report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No you don't, all that has to be proven is recklessness, I would say driving drunk is reckless behavior!
  report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Once again.....a woman is dead but we find reasons it's ok.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh for heavens sake! Nobody has said it's OK, just that it wasn't murder.
  report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes it was. And yes, every time you discount the crime you are saying its ok.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No, by claiming that the crime committed was other than what it actually was you discount it, and you discount all those who have been murdered.
  
  Face up to reality, he didn't murder anybody, he unlawfully killed somebody which is almost as bad, but not the same.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It factually was not murder, it was factually also not OK, he is also factually dead and utterly irrelevant to modern politics.
  report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It factually was and possibly even premeditated, this is the part where you say I'm wrong because you have inside knowledge or a gun told you so.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yup he premeditatively got drunk and drove off a bridge in a car he was also in
  
  The gun is telling me you are wrong
  report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Driving drunk=Reckless=all that is needed to prove the crime of Vehicular homicide!
  
  The gun is obviously from Czechoslovakia.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Make up your mind! You've been insisting that he committed murder but now you've changed it to "Vehicular homicide!" which is manslaughter.
  report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He's a murderer/manslaughterer/homicider!
  
  And thank you God for giving him the painful death he deserved!
  
  And I'm not much of a Christian so don't use that one on me.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Now he was three different things!
  report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Know, he was a philanderer also, so at least 4 things. Wait, a raging alcoholic too.
  report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He is hardly irrelevant to modern politics. it was his endorsement of Barack Obama that got him in.
  report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, wouldn't be that way if it was Reagan! They would find a way to even blame his grandchildren.
  
  A Kennedy, they can commit crimes against anybody they desire, women,children. The liberal mind is a funny one.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Nope we don't even talk about the Contra scandal and the thousands of innocents killed by it. Not to mention killed, raped and skinned in no particular set order.
  report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  About manslaughter. There is no requirement of premeditation to this crime and no requirement for there to be intent or knowledge on the part of the defendant. The only requirement is that the defendant's conduct was reckless.
  report
  76
  psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I doubt anyone could become President with full moral integrity intact.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  --The housing collapse is all the Democrats fault.
  
  **no it isn't, for these reasons.
  
  --Is too, is too!
  
  **No, it's really not, again, for these reasons.
  
  --Yeah, well, um.....Ted Kennedy killed someone with his car, so there!
  
  Losing an argument? Quick: Change the subject! Maybe you can win the new argument and everyone will forget how you embarrassingly lost the last one....
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Lost the argument to whom You?
  
  It is the democrats fault just because you don't want to admit it doesn't make you the victor.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yup, you totally lost the argument to me. Because you have your facts wrong, and facts are stubborn things.
  
  Poor, poor, ideologues.
  
  Here's a pro-tip: if you don't like looking foolish, change your mind when you're wrong.
  
  It works.
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You know you're wrong but unable to say it.
  
  Democrats created the environment for the toxic loans, they then obstructed attempts at regulating the mess they made.
  
  It is all there for all to see, don't forget Clinton repealing Glass-Steagal.
  report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You know you're wrong but unable to say it.
  I'm not wrong. I like being right so much that I change my mind when I'm wrong.
  
  Democrats created the environment for the toxic loans....
  Another falsehood. You say "Democrats" did it, as if Democrats did it over GOP objections, but don't want to face the fact that the deregulation happened in a GOP-majority congress, with nearly unanimous GOP support, and enough votes to override any potential veto. (Plus, a decent chunk of Dems voted against.)
  
  To anyone with any kind of objectivity, that doesn't look like "Democrats" doing it. The worst thing you can blame "Democrats" for is not opposing the deregulation enough (or for not enough of them opposing it, whichever you prefer). The GOP didn't oppose it at all--in fact, they introduced the deregulation bill.
  
  Now you have a choice. You can bring up something else that's completely unrelated to the topic at hand in a further pathetic attempt to distract (and continue being wrong and looking foolish).
  
  Or, you can admit that the GOP was more responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagal than the Dems were, admit that nobody in congress (regardless of party) committed the securities fraud that actually created the bubble, and stop pretending that it was "democrats" that caused the housing collapse.
  
  I hardly have the heart to keep arguing at this point. It's starting to feel like kicking someone when they're down.
  report
  55
  Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The government, under numerous presidents, encouraged homeownership as sign of a strong economy. Both democrat and republican administrations encouraged banks to loan to people with bad credit. Banks were all too willing to take advantage of some of the government-secured deals in order to turn a profit; they also encouraged people to take on loans that were unconventional and unwise. We, the taxpayer, were saddled with paying for these bad loans when the economy went south. Who is at fault? Republicans, democrats, banks, and the people who got in over their heads are all at fault.
  
  Now, did the republicans warn of an impending banking and housing collapse? Yes. Did some democrats argue that this wouldn't happen? Yes. Did republicans argue loudly enough so as to actually accomplish anything? In other words, were republicans able to push for changes that negated the possibility of a banking crash? No. Did republicans enjoy greater homeownership numbers just as much as democrats? Yes.
  
  In my book, all the politicians, bankers, and people who got in over their heads caused this. For that matter, I'm at fault for voting for any of these people. There's plenty of blame.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  
  Who do you think you are? The voice of reason?
  report
  55
  Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  A blind squirrel finds an acorn in the forest, from time to time.
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No, you're not so blind.
  report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes but did the acorn make a sound if the blind squirrel wasn't there?
  
  :p
  report
  70
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Far from perfect, as are most of us, but far from morally bankrupt. His record as a senator was actually outstanding.
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  For a homicidal drunk.
  reply report
  83
  donotfearposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He should have resigned.
  reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
Who created the conditions that resulted in the housing crisis? The Democrats, with Freddie, Fannie, the CRA, and Fair Housing.

That is the truth that the libs here try to avoid! Without that Democrat meddling in the housing market, the loans would never have been made!

And why did the Dems do that?

To buy votes. That's the key to everything the Dems do.

In any case, I've made my point, so you libs are now free to twist my words all you want.

It's what you do best.
reply report
60
BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years ago
Why do you deny the truth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIjoW_IXos4
reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
You'll notice that the one thing Jeff and the others will not deny is that the Democrats, with Freddie, Fannie, the CRA, and Fair Housing set up the situation that encouraged the high risk loans that led to the collapse.

They don't deny it because they know it's true. So they divert.

Jeff admits that the Democrats baked the housing pie and deliberately set it in the window to tempt the thieves, but he attaches no responsibility to the tempters at all.

Typical liberal.
reply report
1. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If I put a pie on the windowsill to cool, and someone steals it, who is guilty of theft? Me, or the guy who took the pie?
  
  Your argument above blames me, and not the guy who took the pie.
  
  Morally. Bankrupt.
  
  Typical partisan scoundrel. (True conservatives have moral integrity.)
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'm pretty sure the sequester took the pie.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Losing an argument? Just change the subject--maybe you can make it look like you won this argument by starting an entirely different one....
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not even close Jeff. There is no sense in debating who is at fault with you, you like every other liberal will deny the facts. The only thing left is brevity.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If you take your cooling pie of the window sill, push it into a hungry man's hands and turn your back, did he steal it?
  reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
"Your argument above blames me, and not the guy who took the pie."

No. Unlike you, I'm not blaming one while ignoring the other...both are to blame, and I think that despite your deliberate obtuseness, you know very well that it's true.
reply report
1. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, I'll accept that you're blaming both acters for the theft of the pie (even though only one person stole a pie).
  Now if you want anyone to agree that the person who put the pie on the windowsill and the pie thief are both equally culpable, you must construct an argument for why putting a pie on a windowsill is morally wrong.
  
  Can you do so? I doubt it, 'cos it isn't. But go ahead and try.
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You don't think its morally wrong to guarantee all mortgages with someone elses money?
  reply report
2. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So a guy cooling a pie is morally culpable for doing so if someone steals it? What universe do you live in?
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Only you two would compare the billions lost to a pie!
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Which is weird since: "Jeff admits that the Democrats baked the housing pie and deliberately set it in the window to tempt the thieves, but he attaches no responsibility to the tempters at all. "
  
  Was what started the pie analogy and was posted by WillStarr.
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No he didn't you should read more.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I did and it appears he indeed did not start it but he most certainly used it which means he did in fact "compare the billions lost to a pie!" as apparently only Jeff and I would do...
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I have already explained the sequester stole the pie.
  reply report
  55
  Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The sequester caused this thread.
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The sequester caused you to post.
  reply report
  55
  Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The sequester caused you to reply.
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Bad sequester.
  reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
"Okay, I'll accept that you're blaming both acters for the theft of the pie (even though only one person stole a pie)."

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? That's the hallmark of a dishonest debater!

I blame the Democrats for knowingly tempting lenders to make bad loans, while you pretend that only the lenders are to blame. Without the Democrat's schemes, those loans would never have been made, a fact that you will not admit.
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Anyway this whole argument is based on a false premise that guaranteed loans caused the GFC this is factually untrue, indeed guaranteed loans performed much better than completely independent loans taken out by people with no government support or aid, the government insisted that anyone receiving it's help had to have an income capable of repaying the loan within 25 years with the interest.
  
  The crash was cause by NINJNA loans (no income, no job, no assets) which were entirely created by private institutions and it collapsed when these failed to make returns, unfortunately these were packaged and sold all over the place spreading those irresponsible decisions to those too greedy for short term profits to consider the risks.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly so. According to Will's logic, if a rich guy gets robbed, it was his fault for being all rich and tempting thieves to steal his wealth.
  
  Again: Morally. Bankrupt.
  reply report
2. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?
  
  I didn't put words in your mouth. You said: "Unlike you, I'm not blaming one while ignoring the other...both are to blame,"
  
  So both the thief and the victim are to blame, according to YOU.
  
  Morally. Bankrupt.
  reply report
68
healthyfitnessposted 11 years ago
Thats a great quote. It makes a lot of sense. In my opinion anyone can be successful in a capitalistic society.
reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
"Was what started the pie analogy and was posted by WillStarr."

Do try to keep up, Josak...the pie analogy was Jeff's idea, not mine
reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
"I did and it appears he indeed did not start it but he most certainly used it which means he did in fact "compare the billions lost to a pie!" as apparently only Jeff and I would do..."

(sigh)

What is it with liberals and putting words in your mouth?

My point all along is that without the deliberately tempting provisions provided by Democrats, the lenders would never have made loans they knew could not be repaid.

The Democrat meddling in the housing market was the necessary stimulus that created the housing bubble and the disaster that followed. That much is undeniable.
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Simply not true since most of the failed loans had no government involvement whatever they were simply private institutions gambling on a housing market that they thought would continue to grow.
  
  The failing from both sides was failing to regulate NINJNA loans and sub-prime loan packaging.
  reply report
2. 60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And yet they keep denying it.
  
  The sequester made them deny it.
  reply report
3. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  without the deliberately tempting provisions provided by Democrats,
  
  Lemme get this straight: even though the repeal of Glass-Steagall was done by a Republican majority congress, with the GOP voting almost unanimously in favor, it's the Democrats who did it? And what's more, they did it to deliberately tempt people to commit fraud?
  
  Seriously? Is that what you're going with?
  
  You're looking really ridiculous now.
  reply report
60
BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years ago
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Had overwhelming support of both Parties and the democrat Presidents signature.
reply report
80
Credence2posted 11 years ago
If what I have been reading is representative of the conservative brand, it is no wonder that they are and remain in trouble with the American electorate. They have been diverting from the relevant topics throughout this thread. Yes, Edward Kennedy was a great legislator, regardless of what the rightwing political geniuses have shared with us. There is no negotiating with them. Having a more evolved sensibility, we must simply resolve to defeat them at the polls at every opportunity, knowing who they are and what they REALLY represent.

I am just afraid that they will resort to lock and load tactics once they are sufficiently bored with the democratic process, and there is no way for them to reach people with their nonsense. I would never put it past a rightwinger!
reply report
1. 60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Its more evolved to justify killing? I see, thanks for the tip.
  reply report
61
Barefootfaeposted 11 years ago
Ok I will just say that i only brought Ted up for a couple reasons. Firstly no one of either party has any sort of business telling anyone else they are morally bankrupt. Any politician alive is morally bankrupt. That's the nature of the business.

Second: I know you have hears this before but had that been GW Bush or any other politician perceived as Republican or Conservative the screaming and yelling and rending of clothing and holding of breath till you turn purple and what ever other manner of public display of mad pissofffedness the left could have demonstrated would have been until that individual left office and was never heard from again.

But it's Ted Kennedy and he was a great Senator. That's the left.
reply report
1. 60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And they should be reminded of their hypocrisy every minute of everyday!
  
  Not that it matters to them.
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well it is always they are supposed to beat you over the head with stuff but they will just sort of sniff and shrug their shoulders if you turn it around on them.
  
  They don't like to be reminded of the odor from when they defecate. A true liberal leaves no odor.
  reply report
  60
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It is amazing how they do not recognize in themselves what they see in others.
  reply report
83
WillStarrposted 11 years ago
What to Cut: Calls to shed debt-burdened Fannie, Freddie

More than five years after the housing bubble burst -- sending the U.S. economy into a tailspin from which it has yet to fully recover -- the two government-backed entities at the heart of the bust remain deeply in debt.
At a time when the government is struggling just to pay its bills, the sustained troubles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continue to lead to calls from many to privatize the mortgage giants.
"The biggest problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is that they are financial institutions with a social mission," said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste.
That social mission, critics say, is to heavily subsidize mortgages for people who don't meet sound lending qualifications. "Lower income homes have a tougher time paying mortgages and when the housing market started to go under, that was the first to go," Schatz said.
Both Fannie Mae, which was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression, and Freddie Mac, created in 1970, had historically been restricted to so-called prime loans -- or high-quality loans. That ended in 1992, under the George H.W. Bush administration, when Congress passed the Safety and Soundness Act, which required the Department of Housing and Urban Development to promote affordable housing.
American Enterprise Institute scholar Edward Pinto said this "actually planted the seeds of the destruction of Fannie and Freddie" by feeding "the boom and the bust."
Pinto said that bad choice led to another when, in 1995, the Clinton administration created the National Homeownership Strategy. "Its cornerstone was doing away with downpayments. So you had now Fannie and Freddie, instead of doing prime loans, were doing progressively more risky and risky loans."
The George W. Bush administration also pushed low-income homeownership, but sounded alarms about the health of Fannie and Freddie as early as the fall of 2003, when ex-Treasury Secretary John Snow told a congressional committee: "We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's (government-sponsored enterprises)."
Some refused to pay heed to Snow's warning. The then-ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, told Snow: "The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see ... then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing."
Today, taxpayers are stuck with the bill for the government's poor judgment.
"In June 2011, the Congressional Budget Office said that taxpayer liability for Fannie and Freddie had reached $148 billion and could go up to $317 billion," Schatz warned.
Pinto believes the government further distorts the mortgage market through its 12 federal home loan banks, the Federal Housing Administration, and Ginnie Mae.
The departments of Agriculture and Veterans Affairs also provide mortgage assistance.
But Pinto singles out FHA, in particular. "It has really become the escape valve for riskier lending," he said. "They could take the riskiest loan that they'll do, and they'll price it the same in terms of a guarantee fee or an insurance fee as the least risky product they'll do. That's because Congress won't let them price for risk. They basically said we don't want you to price for risk, we want you to have these distortions."
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said this was all done "in the name of doing good" but described it as a "misdirected compassion for something that you couldn't actually accomplish."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03 … z2OsGme2OY
reply report
70
Ralph Deedsposted 11 years ago
"The evidence of the wreckage of the Bush years can be found everywhere. Under this conservative president, federal spending rose from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 21 percent in 2008, while a $125.3 billion surplus became a $364.4 billion deficit. Median family income, which had grown from $42,429 in 1980 to $46,049 in 1990, and which grew again during the Clinton Administration to $50,557 by 2000, shrank under George W. Bush, standing at $50,223 in 2007 before the start of the recession. During the Bush presidency, three million jobs were created. That compares to 23.1 million during Bill Clinton's two terms, and 16 million during Ronald Reagan's. The rate of job creation under Bush was the lowest under any post-World War II president."

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Thomas B. Edsall in Huffington Post.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Think about this...

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Think about this...

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies