Post: #126

Post: #127

Post: #128

Post: #129

Post: #130

(10-28-2013 08:50 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I am a huge fan of Clinton. Booming economy, balanced policies, never groveling in wake of the Monica Lewinsky thing (even though he should have done the "tacitly admit but pretend nothing's wrong" Berlusconi-style maneuver instead of "I did not have sex with that woman")... what's not to like? Oh, and he also oversaw a very positive military intervention in Kosovo. Of course I don't think he's flawless or anything, but I'd gladly take him over either of his successors.

Read Hitchens book on Clinton.

Hitchens shows how Clinton is a compulsive liar, sociopath, and complete all around scum bag.

I completely agree with Hitchens. There is nothing alpha about constantly lying and distorting the truth in order to manipulate those around you.

In short. I hate Clinton's goofy bitch ass. The world will be a better place when he dies.

Post: #131

(10-28-2013 09:05 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:50 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I am a huge fan of Clinton. Booming economy, balanced policies, never groveling in wake of the Monica Lewinsky thing (even though he should have done the "tacitly admit but pretend nothing's wrong" Berlusconi-style maneuver instead of "I did not have sex with that woman")... what's not to like? Oh, and he also oversaw a very positive military intervention in Kosovo. Of course I don't think he's flawless or anything, but I'd gladly take him over either of his successors.

The booming economy had little to nothing to do with Clinton. It was the tech boom, he just got lucky to be there when it occurred and managed to not take advantage of it.

Not to mention, huge cuts in defense spending with the fall of the Soviet Union, huge cuts in welfare and food stamps, huge savings in energy costs with the Saudis practically shipping over oil at cost after we saved them from Saddam Hussien, and the raiding of the social security after he changed the guidelines.

With all of the lucky things that happened to fall in his lap, he still managed to almost fuck everything up.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall. Changes in the guidelines of the CRA which is directly responsible of the housing bubble. GATT and NAFTA, which have paved the way for the rise of China, the crumbling of US manufacturing, and the crippling of US labor unions.

The dude is a complete worthless piece of shit.

Post: #132

(10-30-2013 05:30 PM)F1Driver Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:50 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I am a huge fan of Clinton. Booming economy, balanced policies, never groveling in wake of the Monica Lewinsky thing (even though he should have done the "tacitly admit but pretend nothing's wrong" Berlusconi-style maneuver instead of "I did not have sex with that woman")... what's not to like? Oh, and he also oversaw a very positive military intervention in Kosovo. Of course I don't think he's flawless or anything, but I'd gladly take him over either of his successors.

Read Hitchens book on Clinton.

Hitchens shows how Clinton is a compulsive liar, sociopath, and complete all around scum bag.

I completely agree with Hitchens. There is nothing alpha about constantly lying and distorting the truth in order to manipulate those around you.

In short. I hate Clinton's goofy bitch ass. The world will be a better place when he dies.

I missed that post. The booming economy of the 90's was simply a continuation of the booming economy of the 80's. Clinton lied to the nation over the Lewinsky affair and did not man-up, causing a Constitutional crisis. He was a in a real mental funk during that period and could not do his job, expecting impeachment -- which happened, for only the second time in the nation's history.

He involved the nation in numerous military interventions in which we had no vital national interest, Haiti, Somalia, and Kosovo just to name a few. He refused to provide armor to our military in Somalia, which caused the disaster there (as documented in Blackhawk Down). A real prince.

Post: #133

(10-30-2013 05:41 PM)F1Driver Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:05 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:50 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I am a huge fan of Clinton. Booming economy, balanced policies, never groveling in wake of the Monica Lewinsky thing (even though he should have done the "tacitly admit but pretend nothing's wrong" Berlusconi-style maneuver instead of "I did not have sex with that woman")... what's not to like? Oh, and he also oversaw a very positive military intervention in Kosovo. Of course I don't think he's flawless or anything, but I'd gladly take him over either of his successors.

The booming economy had little to nothing to do with Clinton. It was the tech boom, he just got lucky to be there when it occurred and managed to not take advantage of it.

Not to mention, huge cuts in defense spending with the fall of the Soviet Union, huge cuts in welfare and food stamps, huge savings in energy costs with the Saudis practically shipping over oil at cost after we saved them from Saddam Hussien, and the raiding of the social security after he changed the guidelines.

With all of the lucky things that happened to fall in his lap, he still managed to almost fuck everything up.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall. Changes in the guidelines of the CRA which is directly responsible of the housing bubble. GATT and NAFTA, which have paved the way for the rise of China, the crumbling of US manufacturing, and the crippling of US labor unions.

The dude is a complete worthless piece of shit.

Yep, plus he signed the original VAWA.

In other words, it was okay for Billy Boy to fuck around with other women, but all you peon men better bend over for the police state.

Post: #134

(10-28-2013 05:22 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 04:50 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  The economy is so bad that the S&P is at an all time high and banks are bigger than ever.

The clinton thing was in 1998.....near the end of his term so 6 years is quite an exaggeration.

The Clinton thing was in 1994. His first two years were a complete failure. He tried to do what Obama did and was a disaster. But we had a more informed society back then and they voted the Democrats out and kept them out his last 6 years. So for 6 years he was a lame duck.

The S&P at an all time high is because the economy is bad. The S&P is made up of international companies. The smart people with money are dumping their investments in the USA and putting them into mutli-national companies because they are impacted less by the crap US economy. Add to it, Obama's spending and the interest rates kept at all time lows is forcing people who would rather buy bonds or CD's are forced into buying stocks.

The S&P so high right now, with all the other factors, is just evidence of no respect for Obama's handling of the economy.

don't forget about the 1.88 TRILLION dollars of money created out of thin air and dumped into the bond market, which basically goes right into the pockets of the mega wall street banks. And there is no stop to it. 85 BILLION per month.

The US and the dollar are headed straight for destruction as soon as Yellin, or whomever the next Fed chief is, turn off the presses. It is going to be hideously ugly. EVERY currency that has ever expanded the money supply has collapsed. EVERY ONE. But we are spending at an even faster rate than ever.

Post: #135

(10-30-2013 05:41 PM)F1Driver Wrote:  Repeal of Glass-Steagall.

I did not think that anyone on this forum was even savvy enough to be familiar with Glass-Steagall. Props to you.

The repeal of Glass-Steagal was the cause of the banking crisis of 2008. Clinton repealed a law from the 1930s that protected the nation from exactly that type of crisis. Then after the disaster, we get hit with that worthless piece of liberal garbage Dodd-Frank, instead of simply reviving Glass-Steagal.

Post: #136

(10-28-2013 05:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The S&P right now is at all time highs because the federal reserve is printing cash and giving it out to free to big banks, who then refuse to lend it out but instead invest it in the same stocks with their High Frequency Trading algorithms. (I wish I could buy and sell stocks 1000 times per second)

fyp

Post: #137

(10-30-2013 05:52 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 05:41 PM)F1Driver Wrote:  Repeal of Glass-Steagall.

I did not think that anyone on this forum was even savvy enough to be familiar with Glass-Steagall. Props to you.

The repeal of Glass-Steagal was the cause of the banking crisis of 2008. Clinton repealed a law from the 1930s that protected the nation from exactly that type of crisis. Then after the disaster, we get hit with that worthless piece of liberal garbage Dodd-Frank, instead of simply reviving Glass-Steagal.

What is amazing, is that even as big of a chicken turd that Clinton is, he even one time admitted some things he did helped lead to the housing market crash/crash of 2007.

Yes, the repeal of Glass-Steagal was a HUGE cause in the banking crisis. I blame the Republicans as well for this, but further evidence of what a turd of a president Clinton was.

The problem is, no one has put it back in place.

Post: #138

This is a word

How many times does a redpill guy have to have his eyes violated with the word "faggot" in one day.

Maybe the OP secretly wants to have a fag stick up his ass.

Post: #139

Quote:Then after the disaster, we get hit with that worthless piece of liberal garbage Dodd-Frank, instead of simply reviving Glass-Steagal.

Make an educated guess who gutted the Dodd-Frank and stripped it of its major provisions.

Quote:[b]Paul Ryan (GOP) demands $35 billion of the cuts come from the Financial Services Committee, which oversees much of the regulatory apparatus that would enforce Dodd-Frank. The committee is now chaired not by the reform bill's namesake, Rep. Barney Frank, but by median-intellected Spencer Bachus of Alabama, who last year voted to delay Dodd-Frank reforms designed to prevent swaps disasters like the one that drove his home turf of Jefferson County into bankruptcy.

Bachus' solution to coming up with massive budget cuts? Eliminate the entire Title II section of Dodd-Frank. If another­ bank failed, Bachus argued, it would take way too long to recoup the bailout money from Wall Street through that crazy assessment process that Republicans themselves had insisted on only two years earlier. In the end, the logic went, taxpayers would wind up footing the bill anyway, so better just to scrap the entire plan to have the FDIC pay for the bailouts upfront – thus "saving" taxpayers some $22 billion.

...

By the beginning of this year, as a result of all of these threats, delays and lawsuits, Americans could barely see Dodd-Frank's footprint in their everyday economic life. Yet Wall Street was still insufficiently convinced that key portions of Dodd-Frank were really dead. So it went over the heads of regulators and impelled Republicans in the House to create an avalanche of new laws designed to undercut the rules the CFTC and SEC were already heroically failing to write.
The nine bills being contemplated by Congress take a variety of approaches to gutting Dodd-Frank. Two bills, H.R. 1840 and H.R. 2308, are essentially stalling tactics, requiring regulators to undertake more of those sweeping cost-benefit analy­ses that result in lengthy delays. Another bill, H.R. 3283, is more substantive: Sponsored by Connecticut Democrat and hedge-fund industry BFF Jim Himes, it exempts foreign affiliates of U.S. swaps dealers from all Dodd-Frank oversight. The rule, if implemented, would make the next AIG possible, given that AIG was undone by half a trillion dollars in derivative bets produced by such a foreign affiliate – its London-based financial products outfit, AIGFP. If passed, says Rep. Brad Miller, a Democrat from North Carolina, H.R. 3283 would leave a "massive, gaping hole" in Dodd-Frank. "It would be very easy to move those trades to whatever the most indulgent country would be," Miller explains.

The bill also exempts from oversight any swaps deals between company affiliates – meaning that Goldman Hong Kong can sell swaps to Goldman New York without having to deal with Dodd-Frank. That sounds harmless, but when you combine it with the AIG-style exemption, a bank would basically be able to get around Dodd-Frank entirely by creating its swaps products at an overseas branch, or moving them back and forth between affiliates.

An even more distressing bill, which recently raced through the committee process with a simple voice vote, is H.R. 3336, granting broad exemptions from swaps regulations to any company that offers "extensions of credit" to customers. There are some who are convinced that once the financial industry's lawyers get hold of this "extensions of credit" line, they will use it to win exemptions for banks engaged in almost any kind of lending activity – including those involved with municipal-bond offerings, one of the most dependably corrupt businesses in the American economy.

"If all of these bills pass," says Stanley, "I don't know why we wouldn't just invite the industry lobbyists in to rewrite the rules."

This is like a man who kills his parents and then begs the court to spare him because he is an orphan. It's ludicrous that the same people who made the act worthless (and allowing the situation that Samseau has succintly described above) are now complaining about it being worthless.

Post: #140

(10-31-2013 04:29 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:Then after the disaster, we get hit with that worthless piece of liberal garbage Dodd-Frank, instead of simply reviving Glass-Steagal.

Make an educated guess who gutted the Dodd-Frank and stripped it of its major provisions.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...m-20120510

Criticizing the left for the failure of Dodd-Frank act is like a man who kills his parents and then begs the court to spare him because he is an orphan.

I've addressed this in this thread. The Republicans are not the right. The Republicans are left of center. They have to be left of center to try to please the growing number of voters who depend on the govt.

Post: #141

(10-31-2013 04:30 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 04:29 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:Then after the disaster, we get hit with that worthless piece of liberal garbage Dodd-Frank, instead of simply reviving Glass-Steagal.

Make an educated guess who gutted the Dodd-Frank and stripped it of its major provisions.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...m-20120510

Criticizing the left for the failure of Dodd-Frank act is like a man who kills his parents and then begs the court to spare him because he is an orphan.

I've addressed this in this thread. The Republicans are not the right. The Republicans are left of center. They have to be left of center to try to please the growing number of voters who depend on the govt.

That is a whole another argument, but things that Republicans do are not made any better by the fact that you are placing them "left of center".

The fact that Republicans are considered to be far to the right of even far-right parties in Europe, Australia and Canada certainly speaks of how much right-wing they are. And now you're claiming that even that is slightly to the left of center?

What is the real right then? Does that exist anywhere in the world? I don't feel like arguing about what "right-wing parties" would do if there is no party in the world that matches that criteria.

Post: #142

(10-31-2013 04:52 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 04:30 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 04:29 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:Then after the disaster, we get hit with that worthless piece of liberal garbage Dodd-Frank, instead of simply reviving Glass-Steagal.

Make an educated guess who gutted the Dodd-Frank and stripped it of its major provisions.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...m-20120510

Criticizing the left for the failure of Dodd-Frank act is like a man who kills his parents and then begs the court to spare him because he is an orphan.

I've addressed this in this thread. The Republicans are not the right. The Republicans are left of center. They have to be left of center to try to please the growing number of voters who depend on the govt.

That is a whole another argument, but things that Republicans do are not made any better by the fact that you are placing them "left of center".

The fact that Republicans are considered to be far to the right of even far-right parties in Europe, Australia and Canada certainly speaks of how much right-wing they are. And now you're claiming that even that is slightly to the left of center?

What is the real right then? Does that exist anywhere in the world? I don't feel like arguing about what "right-wing parties" would do if there is no party in the world that matches that criteria.

True, the Republicans are to the right of the major parties in Aussie, Canada and Europe. But they are still left of center. They still stand for big brother anti-male policies. Just not as much as the Democrats.

The real right is libertarianism. The candidate in the last election who was on the real right was Gary Johnson. Read up on him, he would crush the anti-male big brother govt. if given the chance.

Post: #143

This Gary Johnson seems like a nice guy. I'd have no problems voting for him. Yet the fact that he got 1% of the vote tells me that something is seriously with the way he is presenting his message. The problem is that it takes a lot more than just "left = bad" or "government = bad" to convince voters, and that is sadly the only thing I've seen from the Libertarian movement so far.

It's also a bit troubling that he only chose to present himself as a Libertarian after he saw that he had no chance of winning the Republican nomination.

Post: #144

(10-31-2013 05:03 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  This Gary Johnson seems like a nice guy. I'd have no problems voting for him. Yet the fact that he got 1% of the vote tells me that something is seriously with the way he is presenting his message. The problem is that it takes a lot more than just "left = bad" or "government = bad" to convince voters, and that is sadly the only thing I've seen from the Libertarian movement so far.

Both parties worked together to keep Gary Johnson out of all the debates and out of the national media.

The flaw in his "presentation" is he isn't a corporate shill. So he doesn't have the big money backing. It would be up to red pill males and women who are sick of this feminist BS ruining their lives to wake up and pay attention.

Post: #145

Was he banned from buying ads? What is stopping Gary Johnson from raising money from small donors, like Obama did earlier? (even if Obama's claim that his money only came from small donors was no doubt an exxaggeration). Not to mention the public financing option that is available to any candidate who privately raises as little as 5000$ in 20 different states.

I'd accept the argument that people are in general too disinterested or stupid to vote for him, but not that it's some kind of conspiracy.

Post: #146

(10-31-2013 05:27 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Was he banned from buying ads? What is stopping Gary Johnson from raising money from small donors, like Obama did earlier? (even if Obama's claim that his money only came from small donors was no doubt an exxaggeration). Not to mention the public financing option that is available to any candidate who privately raises as little as 5000$ in 20 different states.

I'd accept the argument that people are in general too disinterested or stupid to vote for him, but not that it's some kind of conspiracy.

He did raise money and he did have ads and he did campaign.

But it was less than peanuts compared to the big boys. What was the worst was both Dems and Repubs working together to make sure Johnson was not allowed in the national debats.

Conspiracy? Not at all, most voters are complete idiots who have no clue what is going on nor what the candidates stand for. But the Repubs and Dems both knew that Gary Johnson reached strongly to their voting base (get rid of the war on drugs (Dems) and free market capitalism (Repubs)) so they did their best to suppress his message.

Post: #147

(10-31-2013 04:29 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:Then after the disaster, we get hit with that worthless piece of liberal garbage Dodd-Frank, instead of simply reviving Glass-Steagal.

Make an educated guess who gutted the Dodd-Frank and stripped it of its major provisions.

Quote:[b]Paul Ryan (GOP) demands $35 billion of the cuts come from the Financial Services Committee, which oversees much of the regulatory apparatus that would enforce Dodd-Frank. The committee is now chaired not by the reform bill's namesake, Rep. Barney Frank, but by median-intellected Spencer Bachus of Alabama, who last year voted to delay Dodd-Frank reforms designed to prevent swaps disasters like the one that drove his home turf of Jefferson County into bankruptcy.

Bachus' solution to coming up with massive budget cuts? Eliminate the entire Title II section of Dodd-Frank. If another­ bank failed, Bachus argued, it would take way too long to recoup the bailout money from Wall Street through that crazy assessment process that Republicans themselves had insisted on only two years earlier. In the end, the logic went, taxpayers would wind up footing the bill anyway, so better just to scrap the entire plan to have the FDIC pay for the bailouts upfront – thus "saving" taxpayers some $22 billion.

...

By the beginning of this year, as a result of all of these threats, delays and lawsuits, Americans could barely see Dodd-Frank's footprint in their everyday economic life. Yet Wall Street was still insufficiently convinced that key portions of Dodd-Frank were really dead. So it went over the heads of regulators and impelled Republicans in the House to create an avalanche of new laws designed to undercut the rules the CFTC and SEC were already heroically failing to write.
The nine bills being contemplated by Congress take a variety of approaches to gutting Dodd-Frank. Two bills, H.R. 1840 and H.R. 2308, are essentially stalling tactics, requiring regulators to undertake more of those sweeping cost-benefit analy­ses that result in lengthy delays. Another bill, H.R. 3283, is more substantive: Sponsored by Connecticut Democrat and hedge-fund industry BFF Jim Himes, it exempts foreign affiliates of U.S. swaps dealers from all Dodd-Frank oversight. The rule, if implemented, would make the next AIG possible, given that AIG was undone by half a trillion dollars in derivative bets produced by such a foreign affiliate – its London-based financial products outfit, AIGFP. If passed, says Rep. Brad Miller, a Democrat from North Carolina, H.R. 3283 would leave a "massive, gaping hole" in Dodd-Frank. "It would be very easy to move those trades to whatever the most indulgent country would be," Miller explains.

The bill also exempts from oversight any swaps deals between company affiliates – meaning that Goldman Hong Kong can sell swaps to Goldman New York without having to deal with Dodd-Frank. That sounds harmless, but when you combine it with the AIG-style exemption, a bank would basically be able to get around Dodd-Frank entirely by creating its swaps products at an overseas branch, or moving them back and forth between affiliates.

An even more distressing bill, which recently raced through the committee process with a simple voice vote, is H.R. 3336, granting broad exemptions from swaps regulations to any company that offers "extensions of credit" to customers. There are some who are convinced that once the financial industry's lawyers get hold of this "extensions of credit" line, they will use it to win exemptions for banks engaged in almost any kind of lending activity – including those involved with municipal-bond offerings, one of the most dependably corrupt businesses in the American economy.

"If all of these bills pass," says Stanley, "I don't know why we wouldn't just invite the industry lobbyists in to rewrite the rules."

This is like a man who kills his parents and then begs the court to spare him because he is an orphan. It's ludicrous that the same people who made the act worthless (and allowing the situation that Samseau has succintly described above) are now complaining about it being worthless.

You missed the point entirely. Dodd-Frank should have been gutted. It should have been eliminated entirely. It is a drain on the economy. Not having anything -- and simply relying upon the free market -- is better than having Dodd-Frank.

On the other hand, Glass-Steagall was a worthy piece of legislation enacted at a time when Congress was still a positive influence on the nation and still enacted rational bills. The presence of that regulatory abomination Dodd-Frank prevents the enactment of a rational piece of legislation such as Glass-Steagall.

http://www.americanbanker.com/dodd-frank...911-1.html

Query: Do you think that there might be a reason why Goldman-Sachs was Obama's largest donor in 2008 -- a man who never held a real job in his life?

Post: #148

I do know when watching the financial news channels most all the guests agreed that Dodd-Frank was beyond a disaster. I don't know the in's and out's of it, but I know a few guys in the finance field and they said it was a major pain in the ass and expensive for small and middle sized banks.

Post: #149

(10-31-2013 06:26 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  I do know when watching the financial news channels most all the guests agreed that Dodd-Frank was beyond a disaster. I don't know the in's and out's of it, but I know a few guys in the finance field and they said it was a major pain in the ass and expensive for small and middle sized banks.

Exactly. I will say it again:

Query: Do you think that there might be a reason why Goldman-Sachs was Obama's largest donor in 2008 -- a man who never held a real job in his life?

The Democratic Party is the party of large multinational corporations. It is a secret that is kept well-hidden. Just review the donor lists. Follow the money.

Just like Saudi Arabia, supposedly the greatest ally of the U.S. in the Middle East, is actually the greatest exporter of terrorism. Just follow the money. Truth is often the exact opposite of belief.

Post: #150

Quote:Dodd-Frank should have been gutted. It should have been eliminated entirely. It is a drain on the economy. Not having anything -- and simply relying upon the free market -- is better than having Dodd-Frank.

On the other hand, Glass-Steagall was a worthy piece of legislation...

But Glass-Steagall was enacted precisely so that things would not be left just to the free market!

If your aim is to regulate the market, how does it follow that a bill that does exactly that should be gutted so that the market remains as unregulated as possible?

This is circular logic.

Quote:Do you think that there might be a reason why Goldman-Sachs was Obama's largest donor in 2008 -- a man who never held a real job in his life?

The Democratic Party is the party of large multinational corporations. It is a secret that is kept well-hidden. Just review the donor lists. Follow the money.

It's undeniable that Democratic Party is heavily under corporate influence, Goldman Sachs being one of its prime controllers. Of course, corporations are not bad by itself, but Goldman Sachs certainly is. I agree that's bad.

So how does it follow that Republicans, who cheered allowing corporations to spend unlimited money on elections (Citizens United) AND fought against Dodd-Franks as much as possible, would be better in this regard?

What about the Tea Party? It is not only funded by the same interests, it has even been created by them.

Name me one political candidate with some workable solutions to this problem. I've now heard of Gary Johnson who was allegedly sabotaged by big corporations acting on the free market, yet you seem to cheer any bill that would restrain them so clearly it's not him either.

What is the solution, other than just claiming that Democratic Party is to blame for everything? Seriously, give me some alternatives here.