TakeYouToTasker Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Hillary was calling for arresting flag burners? She went much further than simply calling for it, she authored and presented legislation seeking it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Hillary was calling for arresting flag burners? She sponsored a bill for it, dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 29, 2016 Author Share Posted November 29, 2016 She went much further than simply calling for it, she authored and presented legislation seeking it. That doesn't make it alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 That doesn't make it alright. No. But it makes gatorman a dipshit, which is our point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 That doesn't make it alright. Hence the choice of two dolts for the highest office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 That doesn't make it alright. Of course not. That wasn't the point. The point was that a) gatorman is a mental midget, and b) that both major party choices were horrendous, and Clinton supporters are wildly hypocritical in their criticism of Trump over this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 You can update to me on the DoJ actions, when you get back from the Beer Summit, reminding us all on why you didn't build that, while you're clinging to your guns & religion. Stupid comments that defined a Presidency are about to go into hyperdrive. Maybe. Will they mean anything? Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Please explain, in detail, how Bush was responsible for the Great Recession. I see. The buck no longer stops where it used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 I see. The buck no longer stops where it used to What could Bush have done to prevent the GR? Seriously, given time lines, and what was (not) known about the bloated housing bubble at the time, what could he have done? Go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 I see. The buck no longer stops where it used to. Clinton wasn't at fault for the dot-com bubble, either. Some times - most times - the economy does whatever it damn well pleases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 I see. The buck no longer stops where it used to. Taking responsibility and being responsible are two different things. So having said that I will ask again and again politely. Please explain, in detail, how Bush was responsible for the Great Recession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 (edited) Taking responsibility and being responsible are two different things. So having said that I will ask again and again politely. Please explain, in detail, how Bush was responsible for the Great Recession. Bush's love for easy monetary policy and his lust for power (getting re elected). http://www.salon.com/2013/10/14/greed_destroyed_us_all_george_w_bush_and_the_real_story_of_the_great_recession/ The Fed kept interest rates low for two reasons. First, employment had recovered more slowly than expected from the 2001 recession, the so-called jobless recovery, indicating that a more prolonged period of lower interest rates was needed to stimulate the economy. Second, Fed policy makers were concerned that the country might fall into a Japanese-style lost decade if they did not make a clear and convincing case through bold actions that low interest rates would persist as long as required to boost the economy. A less charitable view holds that Fed chairman Alan Greenspans motives were less economic and more ideological and self-servingsupporting easy monetary policy to increase the re-election prospects of fellow Republican George W. Bush, who was locked in a tight re-election race, or to curry favor with the administration so that he would be reappointed Fed chairman when his term expired after the presidential election. And, in fact, President Bush did nominate Greenspan for an unprecedented fifth term inMay 2005. Whatever the reason for the prolonged monetary easing, it was crucial to the development of the boom. Edited November 30, 2016 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Bush's love for easy monetary policy and his lust for power (getting re elected). http://www.salon.com/2013/10/14/greed_destroyed_us_all_george_w_bush_and_the_real_story_of_the_great_recession/ It would be an oversimplification to place the blame for the subprime crisis solely on ill-conceived fiscal and monetary policies. Same article. And going to Salon for an unbiased and accurate view of the Bush administration is like going to Rush Limbaugh for an unbiased and accurate view of the Clinton administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 There is some good blame in this article. Good stuff. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/09/100-to-blame-prosperity-theologists-franklin-raines-and-more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 She went much further than simply calling for it, she authored and presented legislation seeking it. Lawyers dodge. Her bill was obviously a move to preempt a bill that was actually trying to punish flag burning. Her bill specifically called for punishment if the burning was designed to incite violence. So, probably never punish anyone So Hillary, the national vote winner, was trying to defuse the issue, while Trump was trying to incite it. Big difference. You false equivalence Trump protectors--even though you hate him, ya right--can't see that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Lawyers dodge. Her bill was obviously a move to preempt a bill that was actually trying to punish flag burning. Her bill specifically called for punishment if the burning was designed to incite violence. So, probably never punish anyone So Hillary, the national vote winner, was trying to defuse the issue, while Trump was trying to incite it. Big difference. You false equivalence Trump protectors--even though you hate him, ya right--can't see that though. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202155.html "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that she would "support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses..." No, she was actually trying to punish flag burning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Lawyers dodge. Her bill was obviously a move to preempt a bill that was actually trying to punish flag burning. Her bill specifically called for punishment if the burning was designed to incite violence. So, probably never punish anyone So Hillary, the national vote winner, was trying to defuse the issue, while Trump was trying to incite it. Big difference. You false equivalence Trump protectors--even though you hate him, ya right--can't see that though. She won the national vote thanks to California. And Trump is trying to incite people...to stop burning the flag? LOL! Is that like inciting people to commit murder...by punishing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Trump is going out on what he is calling his "Thank You Tour" Beginning in Cincinnati on Thursday evening. And this is the explanation for his tweet about burning the American flag. Just watch what happens at every stop he makes. Libs are so easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 (edited) Lawyers dodge. Her bill was obviously a move to preempt a bill that was actually trying to punish flag burning. Her bill specifically called for punishment if the burning was designed to incite violence. So, probably never punish anyone So Hillary, the national vote winner, was trying to defuse the issue, while Trump was trying to incite it. Big difference. You false equivalence Trump protectors--even though you hate him, ya right--can't see that though. You're nuts....in complete denial. Grasping for straws that aren't there anymore. It's scary. Edited November 30, 2016 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Trump is going out on what he is calling his "Thank You Tour" Beginning in Cincinnati on Thursday evening. And this is the explanation for his tweet about burning the American flag. Just watch what happens at every stop he makes. Libs are so easy. That's actually kind-of sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts