RSS
Rove Absolves Bush on Fannie, Freddie
Karl Rove claims George Bush did try to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but got nowhere with Democrats.
What Rove writes is true. But he fails to mention that back in 2001, Republicans controlled Congress.
Neither the GOP members, nor the president had the guts to stand up to the Chris Dodds, Barney Franks and Maxine Waterss of the world, who would accuse them of not wanting black people to be able to own their own homes if lending practices were tightened.
And reasonably cutting access to loose credit conflicted with the president's own goal of the "ownership society."
Besides, George Bush had bigger fish to fry after 9/11/01.
It is ridiculous to blame the Bush admininstration for the lack of regulation and oversight of Fannie and Freddie when so many others, especiallly Democrats in Congress, were fighting such regulation. But it did happen on his watch, while he was looking the other way.
What Rove writes is true. But he fails to mention that back in 2001, Republicans controlled Congress.
Neither the GOP members, nor the president had the guts to stand up to the Chris Dodds, Barney Franks and Maxine Waterss of the world, who would accuse them of not wanting black people to be able to own their own homes if lending practices were tightened.
And reasonably cutting access to loose credit conflicted with the president's own goal of the "ownership society."
Besides, George Bush had bigger fish to fry after 9/11/01.
It is ridiculous to blame the Bush admininstration for the lack of regulation and oversight of Fannie and Freddie when so many others, especiallly Democrats in Congress, were fighting such regulation. But it did happen on his watch, while he was looking the other way.
posted by Spencerblog at
7:39 AM
39 Comments:
"What Rove writes is true."
you left out the word "never".
rove acts like bush's campaign manager. pure spin and horse manure all the time.
Liberalism killed the mortgage. And they did it by bullying with the Race Card. Now we all end up paying for it.
See how all that misguided Libism isn't all just fun and despicable games; it comes with very real consequences.
Dodd and Frank should be jailed.
deregulation favored the banks, wall street investment firms over the poor and small business.
bush and rove should be jailed.. while awaiting capital punishment texas style.
The only "fish" Bush "fried" after 9/11 was 4000+ US servicemen and a few hundred thousand Iraqis.
and anon-iano should be strung up by his nads for taking the 'anonymous' route.
What are you running for? What are you running from?
After seeing what the Democratic push for "affordable" housing has done for the nation's economy, I can't wait for Obama's "affordable" health care.
Maybe this will help prove my point that Bush is solely responsible for his reputation as president dumb ass. Not the "liberal media"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKD_BSMXVjg&feature=related
No salty language or adult content.
Carter - God told me to post this, so it's OK.
Bob:
Since you have never spoken publicly in front of a camera, or on camera in a closed environment, our President deserves some slack concerning what he says. None of us are perfect, and for him, he lives in a pressure cooker 24/7. I pray that Obama is half the man that President Bush is. You should too!
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com
I thought Bush was some sinister calculating schemer. Now he’s a clueless dumbass? So which is it? The Hurt Feelings Libs need to get their whining stories straight. Lol…
Just stopping by to remind everyone that it's only 10 more days until we are rid of this nitwit (Bush, not Randal).
For the record: Bush is a dumbass. He's arrogant and utterly incompetent. He's a brain-damaged former alcoholic, incapable of deep thought.
He picked ill-suited ideological loyalists that implemented failed policies. He never asked the tough questions to evaluate the policies or correct one that were clearly not working. He ignored warnings on the economy for over a year and covered up bad news, until it was too late.
He wasn't calculating, but was effectively sinister in his disregard for the Constitution, civil rights and international law. He decided what he wanted to do, then had his underlings craft hollow and invalid legal arguments to support his policies, all the while claim non-existent privileges to block any real judicial review of the legal underpinnings. The only real "sinister" or "crafty" skill Bush seems to have is injecting politics into non-political matters to push through bad policies.
Unfortunately, he's not even smart enough to understand how badly he has failed and damaged this nation.
His treasury dept couldn't even handle basic tracking of payouts for the first half of the bailout.
Bush has been a total failure as a president and has set the standard for a new low (which should stand for a few centuries, since Palin won't get in).
As for the C. Scott, Bush speaks in front of the camera all the time, ever since he ran for governor. For you to pretend that he's intellectually different under the camera is as silly as you are.
Praying that Obama is "half" the man that Bush is.
1) that's a pretty low bar.
2) that's cutting Obama down from where he really is by a factor of 20 (for the math impaired: Obama is at least 10 times the man Bush is)
3) can you afford to take that much time away from the bigotry of trying to "pray away the gay"?
Bob, good luck with holding down the fort against the onslaught of idiocy that pervades this board from the crusty top (Gil) to the muck-encrusted bottom (R).
See you in 10 for the inauguration.
Carter - How dare you assume that I was never live in front of a camera. I used to be a regular on the 700 Club.
R - OK. Since I have a choice, I'll go with ....sinister dumbass.
David - No fort here. Just a house of cards, built from a deck of jokers. I've concluded that trying to reason with the majority of contributors is the equivalent of trying to keep clean, a stable full of well fed horses. Or in this case, horses asses.
It will be interesting to see the reaction the first time somebody calls Obama a "sinister dumbass".
I put the over/under on our new President losing his sainthood at about six months.
Carter - You have to admit, Diano makes a good point. Bush has had plenty of time in front of the camera. He's not a rookie. Face it Carter. Bush just doesn't think well on his feet. He's easily confused, and has trouble focusing. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the guys incompentent? Its pathetic watching Rove trying to bolster Bush's image, and to watch Bush play pass the buck.
Bob:
Your mindless attacks on our President are "pathetic". Not that I would ever engage in your style of criticism of Barack Hussein Obama (that is how he will be inaugurated), I am firm believer that you never argue with an idiot as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Don't forget to take your meds and prepare yourself for change that you are not going to like. Pray that Obama is half the man as Bush, our nation will depend upon that for its very survival.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com
Carter, Carter, Carter....
You said "Your mindless attacks on our President" I think you meant to say "Your attacks on our mindless president" But thats OK.
We already know the kinds of attacks you engage in. You don't need an issue, or an example of incompetance. You're happy attacking something as benign as a mans name. So we already know how low you will stoop. Then you said "I am firm believer that you never argue with an idiot as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Now thats an interesting statement. Are you saying that you are an experienced idiot? Explain to me again why Obamas middle name was a legitimate campaign issue for you Carter.
It will be interesting to see the reaction the first time somebody calls Obama a "sinister dumbass".
Anyone who dares to will be labeled a "racist". That's how the apologists' protection works. Expect 4 or 8 years of it.
"Reasoning"?? Is that what you call what you've been doing here, BB? L.O.L!
Anyone here ever see Bob reason, or just his usual petty hurt feelings whining and childish cheap attacks?
Who is "Carter"?
Carter - Come on. Bush even said the key for him was to keep expectations low. What kind of leader is that?
Diano - watch this video. Its a riot.
Gil - This one is rated PG. You should watch it too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmunxPxwsew&NR=1
Pro-Dumbass-President-
Your mindless President is "pathetic".
You engage in a different style of criticism: bigotry
You do make an interesting point as to why no one should argue with an idiot like you. Of course, the flaw in your argument (that you are to dumb to see) is that only the idiots would be left to debate public policy and we'd go back to the Dark Ages.
However, it does makes sense that YOU would advocate such a policy to convince prospective clients that they were better off hiring the biggest idiot they could find to argue their cases.
Bob-
Great line about the house of cards being all jokers.
The only disappointment Bush has been to the C. Scotts of this world is that he didn't bring about Armageddon and the Rapture (though Bush's still got 9 days left).
Who is Carter? Earth to Randal. Come in Randal.
Baaahb and Dopey Diano:
Lets see, I am against same sex marriage and homosexuality for a variety of valid reasons, including the obvious. Yet that makes me a bigot. I believe that all life is worth protecting, and that makes me intolerant. I hear all the name calling and I am right. I am also right about economic policy and the need to reject liberal fiscal policy, and yet I am a hater. I get it guys, and it has been happening for years now. Disagreements have been redefined as hate in your circles. You got your President, and I hope he doesn't kill us all. I am just wondering if either of you will have the guts to criticize him when he does something dumb.
Bob: My use of his REAL middle name was a poke at political correctness, you obviously missed that. And the debate is over about it being a campaign issue, he won and he will be inaugurated with his middle name. Lastly, will Chief Justice Roberts be the only one who won't get criticized for using his middle name?
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com
Carter - You know as well as I do, that people like you, used Obamas middle name to try to convince simple minded people, like that little old lady in the red dress, who called Obama an Arab, that Obama was a "Secret Muslim" A person to fear. Randal proclaimed it to be a legitimate campaign issue. And now you're going to tell me that you were just poking fun at political correctness?
I didn't "obviously miss" anything Carter. I wasn't born again yesterday.
Oh, and whats your valid reason for opposing what two grown adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom?
Pro-Bigotry
"Lets see, I am against same sex marriage and homosexuality for a variety of valid reasons, including the obvious."
Umm... no. NONE of your reasons are valid, though bigotry is the "obvious". They are based on not only one particular religious source (the Bible), but your own distorted interpretation of it and even more distorted view that it should be used by you to condemn the lives of others that disagree. Your interpretation of science is equally distorted, erroneous and centuries out of date.
You don't believe that "all" life is worth protecting. Besides the fact that you consume dead plants and animals, you have supported the irrational policies of Bush that have lead to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings, who were not a threat to us.
On economic policy, I don't recall you criticizing Bush as he led the country over the cliff with huge deficits, irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy, and a complete failure to secure the jobs of millions of Americans as we have gone from 4% to over 7% unemployment.
It's not so much that you are a "hater" is that you are so woefully ignorant of centuries of progress since the Bible was written, that you are incapable of functioning as a reasonable or rational voice in modern society. You are sad, pathetic and an anachronism. Your utter disregard for the rights and feelings of gays may not feel like "hate" to you, but to reclassify them based on your own bigotry is equivalent, because you clearly "hate" to give them equality.
Sit at home and wait for the Rapture or walk the streets with a sandwich board about how "The End is Near". Either way, leave the 21st century to those of us that actually live it.
Carter - You are critical of me by saying "I hear all the name calling and I am right." And yet you address me as Baaahb. When you disagree with me its debate. When I disagree with you, it's hate.
Do you know the meaning of hypocrite?
I am just wondering if either of you will have the guts to criticize [Balack Hussein Obama]when he does something dumb.
No thinking person who has ever read the blind partisan apologist postings of BB and DDD would take that bet.
obama is dumb if he thinks whiny racist traitors like you will ever change or acknowledge any of his successes.
Baaahb:
I love that spelling of your name as it was not my original creative genius that created it. Anyhow, since you call me Carter as you know who I am, I am wondering when you will come out from behind the shadows and reveal your identity. Then we can play fair and I will call you by any one of your birth names. Who are you Baaaahb?
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com
Baaahb,
I like everybody's nicknames. As a blog newby, I hope to earn one.
Your "what two grown adults do in the privacy of their bedroom" rationalization takes me back to those wonderful Clinton years, where the children of America learned from our highest elected official that oral sex wasn't really sex.
Maybe that sorry chapter in our nation's history is why people like "Carter" are willing to stand up for morality and values against the ridicule of the anything-goes crowd. I, for one, respect him for his integrity.
Carter - I'm not hiding anything. If you had shown up for the Spencer drinkathon at the Locust Crest, you would have met me. I was there. Gil will verify that. I've also written rebuttals to several of your letters to the Times. But why do you always avoid the questions Carter? Why is it OK for you to call names, but no one else?
Hey, nice to see Diano is back to commenting at least occasionally under his own name.
It's a start.
BTW, if being against gay marriage is bigoted, than Barack Obama is a hateful bigot.
Spencer, if you think Obama is really against gay marriage, then you haven't been paying attention. He is clearly for it, but taking a stealth approach to do an end-run around bigots while the majority catches up to the civil right issues.
Obama is against banning gay marriage, which is the same as being for it, but he's dealing with the political reality of rolling out the issue slowly.
Step 1 will be removing the restrictions on gays serving openly in the military.
The opposition to gay marriage is more concentrated with the older crowd. Every year more of them simply die of old age, reducing the opposition to gays getting equal civil rights.
if you think Obama is really against gay marriage, then you haven't been paying attention. He is clearly for it, but taking a stealth approach to do an end-run around... the majority
Obama is against banning gay marriage, which is the same as being for it, but he's dealing with the political reality of rolling out the issue slowly.
Step 1 will be removing the restrictions on gays serving openly in the military.
And here we have our resident Dishonest Liberal endorsing the Lying Lib method of underhanded incremental implementation while openly admitting that Obama said anything untrue thing he had to in order to get elected.
That sure is some “change”.
PS: Gays already enjoy equal civil rights.
Bob-
Do you consider referencing you as Baaaahb name calling? I think you are making fun of me by calling me Carter. My first name used to cause me distress when I was a grade schooler - so I am sensitive. Please excuse while I dab my eyes. Is your last name Gallop?
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com
Diano:
All you have to do is keep indoctrinating our public school kids to believe that homosexuality is normal, and to name call people like me who have a religious and science based opposition to homosexuality. That has always been the plan. You should be tolerant of my opinions on this matter, as you demand my tolerance of your opinions. By the way, I am not nor have I ever been in favor of persecuting such individuals, but I do feel sad for them.
So now being against a gay marriage ban is the same as being for it. You live in a very unique place. Remember that Clinton singed into law DOMA, so I guess that makes him pro gay marriage too.
Lastly, did you know that it is against the law in PA to have intercourse with an animal. Do you find that to be outrageous, even if the animal consents? Also, sodomy is still a crime in teh military. Did you know that?
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com
Yeah, Mr. S, you know we're living a Crazy Backwards Liberal World when gay is the new normal and suddenly anyone who questions that is labeled a hater.
Libism is so childishly transparent while at the same time calculatingly dishonest.
My first name used to cause me distress when I was a grade schooler
Lol! Because of that utter failure of a LibDem prez Jimmy no doubt!
Carter-
"like me who have a religious and science based opposition to homosexuality"
However, it's based in the Middle or Dark Ages, and thus is treated with the appropriate respect for discredited ideas of that time.
Fighting to keep gays from getting married and taking on phony "First Amendment" cases from kooks that just want to harass gays IS persecution.
Only a "lawyer" like you would pretend that an animal can offer "consent". In light of SpencerBlog new insult policy, I'll leave out the obvious inference as to why this topic is of such concern to you.
As for sodomy being a crime in the military... since you, Spencer and Randal have never served....*comment... self-censored... must.. resist.. urge.. to.. insult..*.
phony "First Amendment" cases
It would seem the all the courts so far disagree with our resident Lib [censored]. Lol...
And what about a sister? They can offer consent...
There really is no defending the [gay] agenda. That's why it's so easy to trip up its defenders and their silly "arguments". (snicker)
Here’s a great article covering many Lib lies including their dishonest promotion of the Gay Agenda and their manipulation of psycology, along with the Lib lies of the Fairness Doctrine and global sky falling:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/01/14/obama/index.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home