He isn't the "sole" criminal, but the deniers pretend he is pristine and all blame goes elsewhere. Since you claim to be one of those "turds" maybe you can explain that.
Barney Frank attacks student
- Thread starter Cancel10
- Start date
I wasn't through but the previous post mysteriously leaped away before I could place the period or proof-read.
I was curious about your inclusion of the Uptick Rule in your earler post since I know of no connection to Frank or any other Congressman except Christopher Cox former Republican Congressman from California and bush's appointee to Chairman of the SEC. The Rule is not a law but a ruling by the Commission, at the time with Cox at its head and the deciding vote to remove it. As an aside, few Wall St. mavens are singing praises for Cox.
Since you say that prior to Frank passing the bill he was "firmly on the side" of working with bush and McCain who had the idea first, might I ask, why didn't THEY pass it?
Several times they tried, one time it even reached the floor where it died because the Whips proved that the law couldn't pass. And I explained earlier in the thread why I mention Franks with the uptick rule.
Again with this nonsense. What does the Senate Republican leadership failing to bring a bill that passed the House to vote have to do with Barney Frank? Frank sponsored and passed a similar bill once he became chair of the finance committee.
You're a douchebag and keep repeating this nonsense even though you know it is horseshit. It seems you just can't quit Kevin Hassett.
Just as you say you hear none of the blame going toward Frank from the other side, the other side hears nothing from your side about any blame whatsoever going to those of the GOP who had total control of the government until 2007.
I remember no mention from the Adminstration or its hopeful successors about a failing economy until within three months of its end of term, when the Treasury Secretary announced to the People and Congress the need for 3/4 trillion dollars for a fiscal emergency to be spent as he saw fit.
Turds appears in the 2 posts prior to mine and if I'm included in that group by either of you, so be it, it's not a problem, but my feeling is that the Right has worked ridiculously hard to find a scapegoat while shirking any resposibility at all, which seemed to be a bush trait, on every issue. For what it's worth was Frank's position wrong? Maybe, but with the ease of hindsight, probably. It should be remebered that through 2005 and further the bush regime still pushed for the "Ownership Society" having the same effect as Frank's position. So would you agree, a pox on both their houses? I could mention "Supply Side" and its failure, but I won't.
This is BS, the reality is you know that bills often die that way and for the very reason I stated. And none of what you say changes that in reality it was pretty much exactly what Bush, and McCain both had worked towards. This is not one of the things that I criticize Franks for, Dung. Although it is one that I criticize my own party for not fighting hard enough to do. Sometimes even Franks can get something right.
Seriously. All you ever bring any more is silly ad homs that don't really add to the discussion. What's happened to you?
Please, I spent the past 6 years talking down my own side. Now yours is in power and people want to give these people passes and pretend it only was Bush. It wasn't, and we will continue to remind you. If we talk about it enough people might even understand, as many who voted for Barack didn't, that the Ds were in charge of Congress when the stink hit the fan.
It died because someone chose not to bring it to the Senate floor. You would think that with Blue Dog aid it would have been easy. At any rate, my belief is that, with balls, every bill should come to the floor in order to create a record, but that decision is always in the hands of the Majority Leader and the Committee Chairman(with a little help from the Administration). The House never had a bill at all, it was not the Dems that killed it.
I missed the earlier Uptick mention, I'll try to find it and its connection to Frank. The new SEC Chairman is holding meetings and hearings about reviving the Uptick Rule in one form or another.
This is disingenuous BS, we both know that often when the Whip counts come back negative laws die there in exactly this way. It is sad pretense to imagine some other nefarious reason for it. The reality is one you cannot dispute, the similar law was put forward twice by Bush and once by McCain although never passed. I wish my party had worked harder at passing it, I think if it had passed early enough it could have made a difference.
And again, just for Dung. This is not something that I criticize Barney for, I only point out that the law was pushed by Bush and McCain long before Barney.
And I am glad they finally will reinstate the uptick rule and personally would prefer they just reinstated the one that worked for 70 years or so before they stupidly removed it. If they don't reinstate the uptick rule, there is something wrong.
....and the Rs had veto power from 2001 until 2009 and the "stink" was already in the air on its way to the fan. Think twice about laying blame for whatever happens to whoever is there when the "stink" hits the fan, its a double edged sword.
They did not. This is rubbish historical revision. Can you tell me who had control of the Senate in 2001?
Anyway, I lay blame where it belongs, both with the Rs and the Ds, only the Ds seem to apparently think their own poop smells like roses.
Yes, I blame my own party for acting like idiots. It seems only your side can't see that sometimes when they are looking at something bad, they are looking in the mirror. At least in this thread it does.
Hilarious. You keep bringing up the bullshit "whip count" dodge. It's bullshit and you know it. Frist didn't bring it up because the Republican caucus didn't want it to be brought up and McCain (who signed on to the bill late in the game) and Hagel and the rest didn't care enough about it to make it an issue. If they really gave a fuck they could have done plenty to try to get it passed. They didn't. The whip count had nothing to do with it.
I find it astounding that to this day you continue with the Kevin Hassett horseshit from Bloomberg that you posted months and months ago but here we are. That is why I call you a douchebag. The discussion can't move forward if you are still where you were back in September.
And his name is Barney Frank, not Franks.
Progress is being made.
I agree with you on the Uptick Rule, but early opposition for it is coming from the 2 Republican Commission members.
I agree with you on paragraph 2, you are correct, but with nuances.
Paragraph 1 is a little different. There are often other reasons which we'll never know for not bringing a bill to the floor. Remember, I also used the qualifier, if they have balls, which somebody, obviously, did not. Hagel was the prime pusher of the bill. McCain joined it several months later, for what its worth. Your final sentence in paragraph 1 is exactly what I have been saying. For some reason they lacked the will and I doubt if it was because they didn't want to cross Frank's path.
Presidential veto power was in bush's hands from 2001 until January, 2009. There was never enough power for an override from either side of Congress. He never used it once on any bill, spending with pork, earmarks, or otherwise until 2007.
You have to be aware enough to realize that your statement about poop is exactly the view the other side has of the "Rs". That's politics. Do you think the country/world should hope and pray for another 8 years like the last 8 years?
What part of any of my previous statements says that? Disingenuous.
I don't know which statement you're questioning. If it's the last line, it says nowhere that you said anything, it merely asks a question. The first part was clarifying my earlier veto reference in regard to your statement about the Senate in 2001 which had nothing to do with Presidential vetoes. Dems controlled 2/3 of the vote in neither House so an override of any veto would have been impossible. bush could have vetoed any bill the Congress laid before him between 2007 and 2009 and now the double edged sword comes into play because it was his watch also. Not disingenuous but on point.
Why would Bush veto the bill if he originally sought it?
And the question was for your leading question that clearly showed you didn't bother to read the previous posts, or at least promptly forgot what you read. Again I ask what part of any of my previous posts gave you any suggestion that I thought the past 8 years were great? It doesn't mean I think we now need to get rid of guns, outspend every President in history in the first year, and forget what people do because of letters by their names.
I'm referring to any bill bush didn't think was a good bill he could have vetoed thus responsibility for those 2 years doesn't rest solely with the Congress. I assume that, since my poop doesn't stink and that I am seeing the bad when I look in the mirror that you see the previous 8 as the model for something to desire for the future and it is me incorrectly seeing them as a disaster for nearly all but a special few.
I'm dense, I don't understand the part about people with letters by their names.
And in those two years, the bills he didn't like he vetoed.
IMO, Bush had his priorities skewed and the Rs (Letter by a name there, I'm sure you'll get it soon) followed along too often, only showing a backbone with Amnesty without border control (Almost all Rs that I know are for Amnesty, if the border is controlled first). Not enough. They spent like idiots, started nation-building wars (check, Bush promised there would be no such thing under his Administration in 2000) without declaration, etc.
I fully understand that my party went astray, and where I believe that they did, and if they don't correct I won't be there much longer. I see this time as the final chance to fix what I see going wrong in what I believe is the US' best chance to stand up for individual freedoms...