It absolutely is, it is the same proof that got Trump elected, Hillary offered more of the same
Obama's TRUE Legacy
- Thread starter zappasguitar
- Start date
It absolutely is, it is the same proof that got Trump elected, Hillary offered more of the same
Republican policies did not dicatate that everyone should own a house, those fucking lowlife democrats encouoraged people to live beyond their means.
" lowlife democrats encouoraged people to live beyond their means. " dd #82
You blame "lowlife democrats [sic]"?
Since when have Democrats been known for banking? Blame the bankers.
Is this an oblique reference to the Bush administration's "sub-prime mortgage melt-down"?
I thought a key element to setting up that colossal failure was Speaker Gingrich teaming up with President Clinton to boink up Glass-Steagel.
Dodd Frank was intended to replace that, but I'm less than confident we've seen the last of the boom / bust economic cycles.
And it wouldn't surprise me if yet once again the working stiffs of the U.S. by the millions will end up bailing out the $millionaire bankers again.
//////////////\\\\\\\\\\\
It's not rocket surgery.
We know how to prevent mortgages from going underwater.
We know how to keep banks solvent.
It's simply a matter of whether congress has the spine to regulate the $money interests that fund their campaigns.
So far, apparently not.
You blame "lowlife democrats [sic]"?
Since when have Democrats been known for banking? Blame the bankers.
Is this an oblique reference to the Bush administration's "sub-prime mortgage melt-down"?
I thought a key element to setting up that colossal failure was Speaker Gingrich teaming up with President Clinton to boink up Glass-Steagel.
Dodd Frank was intended to replace that, but I'm less than confident we've seen the last of the boom / bust economic cycles.
And it wouldn't surprise me if yet once again the working stiffs of the U.S. by the millions will end up bailing out the $millionaire bankers again.
//////////////\\\\\\\\\\\
It's not rocket surgery.
We know how to prevent mortgages from going underwater.
We know how to keep banks solvent.
It's simply a matter of whether congress has the spine to regulate the $money interests that fund their campaigns.
So far, apparently not.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Neither did Democrat policies dictate that everyone should won a house.
Fucking lowlife greedy bank owners used the new guidelines as a golden opportunity to take advantage of the economically naive.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Explain professor.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
You couldn't just explain it? Yep, Derp.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Why should he?
You'll just change what he posts.
It appears to be all you being to the discussion.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
What's the matter, bunky? Comprehensive Reading too much for ya?
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Yes, says the guy who rejected addition and subtraction because he didn't read his own fucking link before he posted and it didn't suit his purposes. Yep, lecture me.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
No, it's just my experience that people like you post shit that has nothing to do with what you're trying to say so reading your bullshit is a waste of time. Do you understand or should I get comprehensive?
His legacy will be that of a failed social experiment where the belief that skin color was a qualification produced yet another unqualified black in a government job.
Socialism is built on greed. The belief that you should be able to keep more of what you've earned can never be greedy. Believing that any portion, however small, of what someone else earned is somehow yours is the greediest type of system that can exist. The latter is socialism.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
I'm not having trouble with it at all. It doesn't mean that if someone is unwilling to do for themselves, the rest of society should be forced to do it for them. The social compact does not mean that one group in society, the contributors, should work for a living while the other group in society, the takers, can vote for one.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Actually, you're babbling. If you've already assumed that nothing I post is of worth, then why read and respond? I ignore idiots and put them on IA. Idiots like you keep following and responding to people you allegedly could care less of what they think or write.
Get your act together, bunky....you come off dumber with each post.
"His legacy will be that of a failed social experiment where the belief that skin color was a qualification produced yet another unqualified black in a government job." CFM #92
I doubt that.
a) Obama's been a fairly successful president.
b) Obama's the first U.S. president in decades to get through his term without a significant scandal.
c) Reagan, the Republican demigod, set the standard of such evaluation as: "Are you better off ...?"
Under Bush (younger) we were not.
Under Obama (darker) we are.
If you don't like the Reagan standard, get a better demigod.
I doubt that.
a) Obama's been a fairly successful president.
b) Obama's the first U.S. president in decades to get through his term without a significant scandal.
c) Reagan, the Republican demigod, set the standard of such evaluation as: "Are you better off ...?"
Under Bush (younger) we were not.
Under Obama (darker) we are.
If you don't like the Reagan standard, get a better demigod.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
So obsessed with me and my posts...ROFL!
When was that...over a YEAR ago?
And can you possibly make a more ignorant claim than stating I "rejected addition and subtraction" because Y-O-U refused to accept my explanation?
Just admit you got schooled and move on.
