PDA

View Full Version : I DENOUNCE HUFF POST AS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE!



LWW
01-10-2012, 11:45 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>PART #1:</u></span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 9 to 0 on Tuesday morning in favor of Lew's nomination and referred him to the full Senate. The Senate Budget Committee also has a vote.

A former top executive at Citigroup who participated in the deregulation of Wall Street during the Clinton administration and recently was tapped by President Barack Obama for a top White House post told a Senate panel last week that deregulation didn't lead to the recent financial crisis.</div></div>

Now, all good komrades must believe that it was not deregulation of Wall Street under Komrade Kinton which created the mess, it was deregulation of Wall Street under Komrade Kinton which was then later blamed on <s>SATAN</s> <s>EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN</s> BOOOOSH which created the mess.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>PART #2:</u></span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lew served as OMB chief from May 1998 to January 2001 during the Clinton administration, when Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 -- two pieces of legislation at the heart of the deregulation of Wall Street. The first repealed the law that had long kept commercial banks from offering products or engaging in services more common with investment banks; the second "eliminated virtually all regulation" over the kind of derivatives that trade outside regulators' view </div></div>

Again, all good komrades realize that it was <s>BEELZEBUB</s> <s>TRAITORS TO THE PEOPLE</s> BOOOOSH which tricked Komrade Klinton into this ... never forget that BOOOOSH is an evil genius idiot!

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>PART #3:</u></span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Obama pick worked at Citi from 2006 until he joined Hillary Clinton's State Department in January 2009, rising to chief operating officer of the bailed-out bank's Alternative Investments unit, a Citi division that engaged in proprietary trading and invested in hedge funds and private equity groups. The Huffington Post reported in July that Lew's unit invested in a hedge fund king who made billions correctly predicting that U.S. homeowners would not be able to make their mortgage payments.

Lew made millions at Citi, including a bonus of nearly $950,000 in 2009 just a few months after the bank received billions of dollars in a taxpayer rescue, according to disclosure forms filed with the federal government. The bank is still partly owned by taxpayers.</div></div>

<span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>HOW DARE THE HUFFINGTON POST PUBLISH THIS PACK OF RETHUGLICAN LIES! AFTER ALL THAT DEAR LEADER HAS DONE FOR THEM, THEY HAVE EXPOSED THEIR SITE AS NOYTHING MORE THAN A PIGDOG TOOL OF THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY OUT TO DESTROY THE PEOPLE'S PARADISE THE REGIME IS STRUGGLING TO PROVIDE US WITH! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/obama-nominee-jacob-lew-f_n_732594.html)</span></span>

cushioncrawler
01-10-2012, 03:30 PM
The fundamentals of the system are broken.
Fundamentally, u shoodnt hav mortgages -- there shood be no such thing -- ie the bank shood wear the full cost of any failure to repay etc -- oh, and, yes, there shoodnt be any banks.

There u hav a system that will now work.
mac.

LWW
01-11-2012, 03:21 AM
The funny thing is that the left bleats constantly about Bush deregulating the banks, Wall Street being a branch of the (R) party and the current regime being against anyone profiting from the misery ... which the demokrooks brought upon the nation ... of the housing collapse, well when the data is brought to them that this regime is doing exactly that they sit in Sphinx like silence.

Soflasnapper
01-12-2012, 06:27 PM
A former top executive at Citigroup who participated in the deregulation of Wall Street during the Clinton administration and recently was tapped by President Barack Obama for a top White House post told a Senate panel last week that deregulation didn't lead to the recent financial crisis.

Well, what WOULD such a person, from such a background, say?

Perhaps it's a semantic quibble, as would be suitable for a Clinton-era personage to engage in-- old times and all?

That is, it's not as if there ever was a regulatory regime in place for derivatives, that was at some discrete point in time then removed. Rather, as the new derivatives investment area exploded, regulations were strongly opposed, and prevented from being put in place.

As some with memories may recall, this was Alan Greenspan's position and strongly stated testimony, and the action then of the Republican-majority of the House and the Senate at the time.

So, we have Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan, and the Republican House and Senate in the dock for this one.

Even the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was done on behalf of CitiBank so that they could absorb that giant insurance company (Travelers, I think it was), was accomplished by a veto-proof vote of the Republican-majority Congress.

wolfdancer
01-12-2012, 07:34 PM
I'm sure that Huff-Po is "trembling" over that denouncement. For the record, I am a fan of that site.

LWW
01-13-2012, 04:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, we have Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan, and the Republican House and Senate in the dock for this one.

Even the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was done on behalf of CitiBank so that they could absorb that giant insurance company (Travelers, I think it was), was accomplished by a veto-proof vote of the Republican-majority Congress. </div></div>

Undoubtedly the republichickens are guilty on this one as well as former godking Klinton.

I come to this conclusion by viewing the world as it is and not as some party of political hacks tell me I should view it.

That being said ... at no time within my lifetime, which goes back to Ike's first term, has the (R)'s held 67 seats in the senate.

You may now resume your regularly scheduled delusion.

Soflasnapper
01-13-2012, 02:57 PM
It is true that no Senate vote could be veto-proof with only GOP votes.

However, when the GOP has the majority of the Senate, at what ever level, no veto-proof vote could fail to include the vast majority of the party in majority position. In the case of the Glass-Steagal repeal, the GOP vote was likely unanimous, whereas in the first draft there was significant Democratic opposition, and it was the Democrats who were the remnant opposition at the end as well.

LWW
01-14-2012, 10:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is true that no Senate vote could be veto-proof with only GOP votes.</div></div>

OK ... I'm honestly curious, did you know that when you made the post but said it anyway hoping you wouldn't get called for it? Or, were you talking as if you knew something when you actually lacked a clue? Or, were you merely regurgitating the spoon fed pap from some moonbat crazy leftist site?

Soflasnapper
01-14-2012, 12:58 PM
I am not being called on anything here except in your imagination. I do not need to use deceptive language or tricks of rhetoric, nor do I think such things are worthy acts.

It was a massive actually unanimous 100% aye GOP vote that passed this originally in the Senate, with a near-unanimous no vote in opposition by the Democrats in the Senate (44 opposed, 1 supported). In fact, by recent standards, the Democrats in the Senate should have won, by having more than 40 votes. Somehow the 'you need 60 votes to pass anything!' "rule" wasn't used in those days. (Yes, we know why-- IOIYAR! of course.)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (Republicans 20516; Democrats 13869; Independent 01),[5][6][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 5444 vote along basically-partisan lines <span style='font-size: 14pt'>(53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed)</span>.[8][9][10][note 2]</div></div> (from Wiki's page on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The bill that ultimately "repealed" the Act was brought up in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 5444 vote in the Senate</span>[15] and by a bi-partisan 34386 vote in the House of Representatives.[16] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 908 (one not voting) and in the House: 36257 (15 not voting).</span> The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[17] </div></div>

So now you can explain how the majority of the Congress, and in fact its unanimous vote to pass something over the almost unanimous vote against it by the Senate, did not contribute to the veto proof eventual passage, and certainly have no responsibility for it. And in fact, it was really Clinton.

LWW
01-14-2012, 01:19 PM
Had Komrade Klinton opposed it ... the demokrooks would have done so also.

That being said ... I've never said Klinton did this alone.

Next Alinskyism please?

LWW
01-14-2012, 01:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact, by recent standards, the Democrats in the Senate should have won, by having more than 40 votes. Somehow the 'you need 60 votes to pass anything!' "rule" wasn't used in those days. </div></div>

Actually ... it was.

This allowed a small number of demokrooks, those in the tightest upcoming races, to say they voted for the bill while also claiming they voted against the bill.

This is common political garbage done by both parties ... voting to have a vote, knowing that voting to not have a vote would kill a bill, and then voting against the bill.

The shame is that you can't see it for what it was.

Soflasnapper
01-15-2012, 12:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Had Komrade Klinton opposed it ... the demokrooks would have done so also.

That being said ... I've never said Klinton did this alone.

Next Alinskyism please? </div></div>

This is the argument of a clown. I just showed you the original Senate vote, all Democrats but one against it.

It cannot have been any more clearly a Republican initiative, with all of their Senate membership voting for it.

LWW
01-15-2012, 04:50 PM
Don't be so hard on yourself.

Let me dumb it down for you.

Some demokrookss vote to allow vote, knowing bill will pass on up or down vote. This same thing as voting for bill. Knowing enough votes exist to get 51 votes, since 60 votes no longer needed, they now vote no. That allow demokrooks to say they for bill before they against it.

Soflasnapper
01-17-2012, 07:20 PM
That was indeed dumb.

That isn't what happened with this bill.

Here is the Thomas (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN00900:@@@S) record of the legislative procedures' tick-tock on the Senate bill.

You don't find cloture motions, either to allow the bill to be considered, or voted on.

It used to be considered proper form to routinely allow votes to proceed, and let the Senate decide things by majority vote, even when the opposition held more than 40 votes (sufficient to defeat a cloture vote).

That's because the Senate is required to have super-majorities to accomplish only a few things under the COTUS: treaty ratification, conviction on articles of impeachment preferred from a majority House vote, and maybe one or two other things.

It was said to be an outrage and a betrayal when the Democrats used the filibuster rarely on judicial nominees (persons who gain a life appointment).

Qtec
01-18-2012, 09:15 AM
Obviously you have absolutely no respect for the facts.

It went totally over your head.

It seems all you know comes from Limbaugh, Fox 'News', WND and other RW blogs.

Q

LWW
01-18-2012, 03:54 PM
And your point is what exactly?

The demokrooks wrote the rules ... now they don't like them?

Soflasnapper
01-19-2012, 05:36 PM
My point was clear, on this case, and on the general case.

In the case you claimed the Democrats voted for cloture, to claim they were for the bill, only to then oppose it unanimously (save 1, very conservative Southern Sen. Ernest 'Fritz' Hollings (D-SC) the sole exception), you got that wrong. There was no need for a motion for cloture, and none was made, and no such vote occurred. You can tell by the legislative calendar, among other things, as a cloture motion once made takes a 72 hour wait before the vote can take place. There is no such 3-day gap in the voting days.

The larger point is that the Democrats never used the filibuster in the routine fashion we see it now from the GOP, who not only refuse to end the 'debate,' but also refuse, using the requirement of a 60 vote in favor, to BEGIN THE DEBATE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Many, many things the Dems opposed, and had more than 40 votes against, they let pass with simple majority votes (which is the design of the Senate, along with moving things along with unanimous consent).

It's even possible the Democrats have never filibustered a motion to proceed (bringing a bill from committee to the floor for debate). I can't be sure of that, but as the current and just past Congress have set and re-set all the filibuster records, it's entirely likely.