PDA

View Full Version : Still lying.....Mitch McConnell



Qtec
04-19-2010, 03:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Mitch McConnell Accuses Obama Of Politicizing Financial Reform Bill</span>

</div></div>

LOL Sure, we believe you Mitch.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"He is the one who is trying to politicize this issue," McConnell said on CNN's "State of the Union." "We are the ones who are trying to get it right. </div></div>

Really Mitch?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McConnell has taken heat from the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders <span style='font-size: 17pt'>for meeting with at least two dozen top Wall Street executives <u>and then coming out against banking reform.</u></span> <span style="color: #990000">ie got his marching orders</span>

"He made the cynical and deceptive assertion that reform would somehow enable future bailouts when he knows that it would do <u>exactly the opposite,</u>" Obama said in the video address, referring to McConnell. </div></div>

....and now he hangs himself.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But on "State of the Union" McConnell repeated assertions that the bill amounted to <u>another bailout for banks</u> and said that Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner were not on the same page on the issue.

"He ought to talk to his own treasury secretary, who agrees with me, as well as the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, that there is a bailout fund in the bill that was reported out of the Banking Committee, the partisan bill that came out of committee on a party-line vote," McConnell said.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>When CNN host Candy Crowley pressed McConnell, <u>saying that banks would have to fork over money for the fund not taxpayers,</u> the Kentucky Republican replied: <u>"Regardless of where the - how the money is produced,</u> it is a bailout fund that sort of guarantees in perpetuity that <u>we'll be intervening once again to bail out these big firms</u>."</span> </div></div>

"Regardless of where the money comes from? "

The bill says that taxpayer money <u>will not be used</u> to bail out any more banks and Mitch still has a problem with that. WHY?

We all know why.

Q

LWW
04-19-2010, 04:33 AM
Can you show me where it says that?

What's that?

It doesn't actually say that?

It says the state can simply take the company without paying a dime?

I already knew that.

LWW

Sev
04-19-2010, 06:03 AM
Actually all they have to do is issue IOU's on tax refunds.

The government should not be in the business of bailing out companies. It should be a Darwinian approach. Take the short term pain and let other enterprising companies fill the niche created.

LWW
04-19-2010, 06:09 AM
I'm not arguing that.

This act however gives dearest leader dictatorial powers to take any company over without judicial review.

That on it's own merits makes the act unconstitutional as neither the legislative nor executive branches have the power the exclude the judicial branch.

The sign that things are in deep deep trouble will be in people like Clarence Thomas start having a strange demise.

LWW

Sev
04-19-2010, 06:46 AM
True enough.

Although assignations of justices may be a bit extreme even for the left. To much technology and to many eyes. 1 whistle blower out to make a buck could bring the entire venture down.

LWW
04-19-2010, 07:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Although assignations of justices may be a bit extreme even for the left.</div></div>

Ask Ernst Roehm about that.

A second big sign would be if key leaders of ACORN start vanishing.

LWW