|
Gaffe-a-day Vice President (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
haha no man I'm just saying it's not one sided, like how a lot of people say she wants just creationism taught in school. I went to catholic school for 10 years and they "taught" both even there... just giving us all sides to let us make the decisions for ourselves.
About Carter... No he just did the following (to name a few):
-Gas lines, 13.5% inflation, 21.5% prime interest rate, 7% unemployment, had to order government controlls of thermostats in commercial buildings to "conserve energy"
-Signed American ownership (and a massive strategic point) of the Panama Canal back to Panama and into the hands of an unelected general.
-invited Rob Mugabe to the white house in 1980 and fully supported his rise to power in Rhodesia, even though a different guy was elected prime minister. Carter got the world press to declare that election null and void, and look what's happened under Mugabe since.
-allowed american hostanges to stay in tehran for 444 days... thinking dialogue would set them free. no surprise they were released the day Regan was sworn in.
-Hugo Chavez was saved from recall by the voters in Venezuela in 2004 with Carter "monitoring" the election. The election was suspicious on many fronts. The exit polls conducted by an independent New York poling firm declared one half hour before the polls closed that Chavez had been defeated. When the official results were announced, Chavez was declared the winner by nearly the exact opposite percentages as the independent poll had determined. Jimmy Carter certified the Chavez victory anyway.
-In 1994, without governmental authority, Jimmy Carter went to North Korea and brokered a deal with Kim Jung Il that was supposed to keep that rogue state from attaining nuclear weapons. Jimmy's "negotiation" called for the United States to provide the North Koreans with $4 billion worth of light water reactors and $100 million in oil in exchange for a promise not to develop weapons plus assurances that inspectors would be allowed in. On Aug. 28, 2003 North Korea announced that it possessed nuclear weapons.
-Perhaps the most egregious and far reaching of the Jimmy Carter failures was his bringing down of the Shah of Iran in 1979, to be replaced by radical Muslim cleric Ayatollah Khomeini. The history of Iran is such that a secular government friendly to both the West and their trading partners along the ancient trade routes, such as India and China, had been an important stabilizing element in Mid-east politics for centuries. Jimmy Carter pressured the Shah, a longtime friend of the United States, to leave Iran. Then he denied him asylum and medical treatment. At the same time he supported the fundamentalist Mullahs who opposed the Shah. A religious revolution followed and the rise of Muslim fundamentalism had begun in the Middle East. The terrorism and overall unrest that plagues the world today can be properly traced to this specific failure of the Jimmy Carter presidency.
- |
What's so different between Carter and your man in the white house? |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i'm no presidential historian so we'll just call it a tie between bush and carter. ;) the list of bush gaffes is surely to be as long, if not longer, when the consequences of his administration have time to fully play out. remember, this financial crisis is already being called the worst since the depression. think about that? if we are going to blame the president for all economic conditions occurring during his term, we need to remember that bush had 8 years to correct the path of easy money and predatory lending. Everyone thinking home ownership is their god given right (which bush championed) is the root of the current economic problem. |
lol... yeah it may be a tie. Imagine if Carter had 8 years instead of 4... who knows what would have happened. I have to say though, there is plenty of blame to go around on the democratic side. I mean, man... do you realize the Bush administration tried 12 different times to put oversight into Freddie and Fannie and was shot down by Chris Dodd and his cronies? Clinton signed into law in 1995 a bill that forced lenders to give loans to people who weren't qualified, or didn't have to prove they were or even that they had a job! I call that buying votes. But still.. read this man, it's quite telling:
How The Democrats Caused the Financial Crisis:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...id=aSKSoiNbnQY0
And in the NY Times back in 1997, you see this--->
"The chairman of the House Banking Committee called today for an investigation into the investment practices of Freddie Mac, the Congressional-chartered, shareholder-owned mortgage finance company, saying it had abused the preferential borrowing terms it enjoys through its ties to the Government. Representative Jim Leach, Republican of Iowa, said Freddie Mac -- short for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation -- had borrowed $125 million in the bond markets on Monday at 6.99 percent, an interest rate reflecting the market's belief that the Treasury had effectively guaranteed repayment. Freddie Mac, whose charter calls for it to invest primarily in mortgages and mortgage securities, then used the $125 million to buy corporate bonds issued by the Philip Morris Companies with identical 10-year maturities yielding 7.68 percent. Mr. Leach said that such an investment strategy might be legal, but that it was not appropriate. 'Freddie Mac was established by an act of Congress for a specific purpose: to advance home ownership, not to facilitate tobacco sales,' he said. 'What Freddie Mac's action amounts to is taxpayer subsidization of corporate arbitrage and, implicitly, the tobacco industry.'''
So all these people that hated tobacco, running down Big Tobacco, and here they are investing in it with your mortgage money! In 1997, run by Democrats at the same time. So it kept getting worse and worse, and finally in 2003 Bush proposed the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis, which was a new agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie, which is an admission that it was a bunch of thieves running the place. Why do you need a commission to oversee them? Why can't you just apply the law to them? If there are people in there violating the charter with Congress, then get rid of them. Have investigations. Well, here's what happened. Even though Bush proposed a new oversight committee, the Democrats said no way. They cried foul. Barney Frank said these two entities, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, they're not facing any kind of financial crisis. He accused Bush of wanting this oversight committee so he could weaken the bargaining power of poorer families. Weaken the bargaining power? You as a family member never interact with Fannie or Freddie unless you're not putting enough down, in which case Fannie or Freddie might not buy your mortgage, the bank might tell you, "You gotta throw a little more in here, or Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae won't buy it, and we don't want it if they won't buy it cause all we want is to give you this mortgage and get rid of it. We're gonna dump it somewhere else, we're gonna package it with other mortgages, what your good old S&L would do or your bank." |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
What's so different between Carter and your man in the white house? |
everything. are you serious? besides... the discussion is about who the worst president ever is, and my man Jerz left out Carter. I just wanted to refresh his memory ;) |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
lol... yeah it may be a tie. Imagine if Carter had 8 years instead of 4... who knows what would have happened. I have to say though, there is plenty of blame to go around on the democratic side. I mean, man... do you realize the Bush administration tried 12 different times to put oversight into Freddie and Fannie and was shot down by Chris Dodd and his cronies? Clinton signed into law in 1995 a bill that forced lenders to give loans to people who weren't qualified, or didn't have to prove they were or even that they had a job! I call that buying votes. But still.. read this man, it's quite telling:
How The Democrats Caused the Financial Crisis:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...id=aSKSoiNbnQY0
And in the NY Times back in 1997, you see this--->
"The chairman of the House Banking Committee called today for an investigation into the investment practices of Freddie Mac, the Congressional-chartered, shareholder-owned mortgage finance company, saying it had abused the preferential borrowing terms it enjoys through its ties to the Government. Representative Jim Leach, Republican of Iowa, said Freddie Mac -- short for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation -- had borrowed $125 million in the bond markets on Monday at 6.99 percent, an interest rate reflecting the market's belief that the Treasury had effectively guaranteed repayment. Freddie Mac, whose charter calls for it to invest primarily in mortgages and mortgage securities, then used the $125 million to buy corporate bonds issued by the Philip Morris Companies with identical 10-year maturities yielding 7.68 percent. Mr. Leach said that such an investment strategy might be legal, but that it was not appropriate. 'Freddie Mac was established by an act of Congress for a specific purpose: to advance home ownership, not to facilitate tobacco sales,' he said. 'What Freddie Mac's action amounts to is taxpayer subsidization of corporate arbitrage and, implicitly, the tobacco industry.'''
So all these people that hated tobacco, running down Big Tobacco, and here they are investing in it with your mortgage money! In 1997, run by Democrats at the same time. So it kept getting worse and worse, and finally in 2003 Bush proposed the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis, which was a new agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie, which is an admission that it was a bunch of thieves running the place. Why do you need a commission to oversee them? Why can't you just apply the law to them? If there are people in there violating the charter with Congress, then get rid of them. Have investigations. Well, here's what happened. Even though Bush proposed a new oversight committee, the Democrats said no way. They cried foul. Barney Frank said these two entities, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, they're not facing any kind of financial crisis. He accused Bush of wanting this oversight committee so he could weaken the bargaining power of poorer families. Weaken the bargaining power? You as a family member never interact with Fannie or Freddie unless you're not putting enough down, in which case Fannie or Freddie might not buy your mortgage, the bank might tell you, "You gotta throw a little more in here, or Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae won't buy it, and we don't want it if they won't buy it cause all we want is to give you this mortgage and get rid of it. We're gonna dump it somewhere else, we're gonna package it with other mortgages, what your good old S&L would do or your bank." |
i'm no champion for democrats. i agree that blame should be spread all around. at the end of the day the blame lies with predatory lenders (mostly mortgage brokers and bankers who were divorced from any risk in signing the loan packages and profited entirely from the upfront fees), (mostly with) overextended consumers, and the credit rating agencies. Perhaps investment banks played a role as well by pushing rating agencies to give better scores or by hiding information about the true risk of the packaged loans, but i don't know that so i will give them the benefit of the doubt (and i'm too lazy to look for articles about the issue).
Ironically, i don't think an oversight board would have helped much. Congress, whether democratic or republican, has proven its ineptitude at dealing with marginally difficult issues (and this is surely not marginally difficult - it's patently difficult). If the credit agencies were doing their job investors could properly gauge the risk associated with the CDOs. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| yeah... I'm looking to buy a new house soon and all I can say is, thank the lord i'm not a seller right now |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
in any case, during that interview with the 5 secretaries of state, powell said that the russian conflict was a direct result of georgian aggression. I'm a huge fan of powell, so anything he says i will listen to intently. I doubt he thinks we should get too firm with russia. |
Powell said Russia acted "predictably" as in "brutal and foolish" with "a lot of reasons to have provocations in the area".
| quote: | Amanpour "if Russia is (the aggressor) and you have to, you know, keep your NATO allies' security, aren't you then committed?"
Powell "Under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which is the NATO Treaty, when one member of the alliance is attacked from abroad -- meaning outside the NATO geographic limits -- then all members of NATO treat that as an attack..."But it wasn't. It's over. The Russians are the offenders right now. And we have to see that. We cannot say to the Russians, We are not going to allow the Georgians or Ukrainians or anyone else to start down the path toward NATO membership. It's not for the Russians to decide that."
>LINK< |
isn't that pretty much what Palin said in the un-edited version of the Gibson interview? yes it was, but Gibson didn't want you to see that. he wanted you to think she's a cold blooded loose cannon. i think he succeeded.
here is what Albright thinks:
| quote: | AMANPOUR: Now you've got Russia invading Georgia. Is the advice to the next president of the United States therefore, you have to go to war against Russia in order to protect your NATO allies?
ALBRIGHT: ...I also think that countries have the right to choose whatever alliance they want to be in. And the main thing, while I fully agree that we can't go back to the Cold War and have a really very bad adversarial relationship with Russia, Russia cannot think that independent countries on its border are a threat to them.
So I think -- I personally believe that we need to go forward with the Membership Action Plan for Georgia and for Ukraine, and keep explaining that it is not a threat. |
exactly the same thing Palin said. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Powell said Russia acted "predictably" as in "brutal and foolish" with "a lot of reasons to have provocations in the area".
isn't that pretty much what Palin said in the un-edited version of the Gibson interview? yes it was, but Gibson didn't want you to see that. he wanted you to think she's a cold blooded loose cannon. i think he succeeded.
here is what Albright thinks:
exactly the same thing Palin said. |
You truly believe that Sarah Palin knew what the Membership Action Plan was? You're far more delusional than I thought. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| i dont care if biden is a child rapist and worships the devil. he's still more qualified to be VP than that other slut. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i dont care if biden is a child rapist and worships the devil. he's still more qualified to be VP than that other slut. |
:stongue: at devil worship comment |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i dont care if biden is a child rapist and worships the devil. he's still more qualified to be VP than that other slut. |
seriously Q5...how can you be playing partisan paul of 33 partisan lane, partisanville, when your VP is such a useless stupid bitch? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
seriously Q5...how can you be playing partisan paul of 33 partisan lane, partisanville, when your VP is such a useless stupid bitch? |
More to the point, ask him to provide one reason to vote for her. He'll start talking about Obama instead. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
haha no man I'm just saying it's not one sided, like how a lot of people say she wants just creationism taught in school. I went to catholic school for 10 years and they "taught" both even there... just giving us all sides to let us make the decisions for ourselves.
- |
Then you received a rather bad version of biology altogether then.
Teaching "both" sides creates the illusion that there are two sides when in fact there is and always has been one, at least that's what the evidence has presented us for over the past 130 years or so.
But if you're privy on believing that there is two sides to the factual evidence presented, I'm game to hear and debate that "other" side known as creationism whenever you are. |
|
|
|
|
