Printable View
I, too, can't tell if Pete is trolling you guys or if he is genuinely this dumb
Edit: Nevermind, it has to be trolling.
1) Present Statement A as fact
2) Be shown that Statement A is false with concrete proof
3) Claim that the disproving of Statement A actually proves you're right
That is the blueprint for trolling. Not saying that anyone who gets they're talking points from Faux News isn't also dumb, but he is clearly trolling you guys for lulz
1. TARP was absolutely necessary at the time, though maybe not to the size that it was. Some of the initial large banks/investment firms bailed out would have had disastrous effect on our economy if they fell. How do they get so large to be "too big to fail" is an interesting and often ignored question. There did appear to be other institutions that TARP monies were given to that seemed questionable given their relationships with Geitner and others close to the Obama administration while other more deserving firms were denied and let to fail.
2. I believe Obama was one of the democratic controlled congress that did send this to Bush's desk. Petey did error in saying it was "Obama's" but the clear point he has been making is the dems passed the law which is accurate. Both sides of this spat the past page or so are being "intellectually dishonest".
huh, using your same logic then why are conservatives still whining about Clinton then? Apparently since the Republicans controlled congress for almost the entire time he was in the white house, I guess they should be blaming themselves! Since Clinton wasn't responsible for it the Repub's were.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
People always say this but that doesn't justify the government giving free money to a company. It's not like the economy is great now, it's more like a slow bleeding death. I prefer a short term depression, than a long term recession.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
91 of 199 Republican representatives and 32 of 47 Republican senators voted for H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. So let's not make it seem as if the Democrats forced it to Bush's desk against staunch Republican opposition. Hell, 63 Democratic representatives and 9 Democratic senators (plus Bernie Sanders) voted against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00213
One of my classes might take a trip to watch the rally the week after next. That'd be pretty damn cool.
Because GEORGE SOROS, that's why!Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
very fair and true...except for the fact many republicans critique Bush for not vetoing more (petey did in here)....which is pretty much the same they blame Clinton for (though admittedly they don't blame Congress during his administration as much). I don't see any Dems criticising Clinton for anything whatsoever. Of course, republicans give Clinton more blame and Dems give Bush more blame...it all depends upon what team you're on.Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleWie
also..I believe Dems have had much more of a majority during Bush's 2nd term and Obamas 1st than Republicans had during any of Clintons time. not really a significant point, but one worthy of mentioning in this discussion.
God who let their ****ing great-grandfather use the computer!!
Reagan, Red Dawn, Rocky IV, Apple Pie, Shotguns, Coors, Mickey Mantle, Yankee Stadium, Ted Nugent, Hummers, big dicks, AMERICA
Fυck you guys, I'm about to make a fortune b/c of these protests
I'm going up there & selling bootstraps
$$$$
lol
How the hell did you get **** through the filter?Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
etothep has permission to say crazy **** yoQuote:
Originally Posted by Kobie
That's impressively obtuse, even by internet standards. By that "logic", no President ever bears any responsibility for things they sign into law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
Absolutely agree that he should have vetoed the bailouts, though in my case it's not a matter of "now"--I was always opposed.Quote:
Either one ... are you now agreeing with the Tea Party and ME ... that Bush should not have signed either one of these??