Bush is an extortionist

evince said:
That doesnt even make sense dude.
Click to expand...

sure it does. let me explain.

Democrats political basis for judges = beliefs in certain inalienable rights are sacrosanct while others are open to be whittled away by congress and the courts, therefore they want judges who will read the same constitution that they read.

Republicans political basis for judges = beliefs in certain inalienable rights are sacrosanct while others are open to be whittled away by congress and the courts, therefore they want judges who will read the same constitution that they read.

Libertarians political basis for judges = ruling according to the text of the constiution and the intent of the framers.

see how simple that was?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
sure it does. let me explain.

Democrats political basis for judges = beliefs in certain inalienable rights are sacrosanct while others are open to be whittled away by congress and the courts, therefore they want judges who will read the same constitution that they read.

Republicans political basis for judges = beliefs in certain inalienable rights are sacrosanct while others are open to be whittled away by congress and the courts, therefore they want judges who will read the same constitution that they read.

Libertarians political basis for judges = ruling according to the text of the constiution and the intent of the framers.

see how simple that was?
Click to expand...


Only in your mind
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Yes, Napolitano is awsome and he is honest. He believes that judges have a duty to just interpret the law, not try to re-write the law as so many judges have done.
Click to expand...
He has a very libertarian view that many people find refreshing in judges, others will tell you he is "dangerous".

I like the guy.
 
Remember now that maost Libertarians are just embaressed Republicans and usually vote with the Republicans.
 
evince said:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-p...administration-committed-extortion-against-ba


Bush admin extorted the banks in the Tarp program
Click to expand...

I can't figure out WHAT did Bush get from the banks by this imagined "extortion" ???

Or are you talking out of your poophole again...???
====================
And to continue...

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

This is what you call "extortion".....
"EXTORTION" requires that one get something of value in return for the perceived extortion....
==================================================
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Whats this little Obama tapdance called....besides "socialism"....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top