Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

FLASH! Charlie Gibson Interviews Palin

Options
1…6791112

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Now that you accept that liberalisation of the financial services sector was in part responsible for the current economic crises would you call for more government intervention trough reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act or something similar?


  • Options
    #243
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #244
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I'm not sure of your logic. What your basically saying is that the US stuck it's hand in the fire and got burned, but don't worry when it jumps all the way in it'll be ok. Why? Because it just will!


  • Options
    #245
    Hobbes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Overheal wrote: »
    Hobbes without any evidence to the contrary, McCain did not disclose Military Secrets. The point is moot.

    Revealing troop plans to the enemy is giving secrets away. I am sure you will continue to argue this, so I can only assume that you have no issue with McCain giving this information to the Viet Cong.

    You were the one making the claim that being POW makes you presidential but even if it did there were at least two times McCain helped the Viet Cong according to his written record.

    Not very presidential.
    The United States has not since been attacked.

    Since 9/11 there has been 15 Terrorist attacks against America. That isn't counting fighting Iraq/Afghanistan and are only attributed to AQ.
    But here's a quicklist I google'd: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163304/posts Cant agree with everything there but theres a few good things in there.

    See thats your problem with research. You take the first link you find and then post it as gospel. To add to that you say you can't agree with everything there but then don't even point out what you do agree with?

    I would of thought someone who believed Bush did a good job would be able to explain exactly how.


  • Options
    #246
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    They had the opportunity to self regulate after the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and they failed miserably. What makes you think they are going to be any better at it in the future?


  • Options
    #248
    CPT. SURF
    Closed Accounts Posts: 321 ✭✭CPT. SURF


    Sand wrote: »
    I think the issue is that they are very much an urban based party, and they simply cant help themselves when it comes to their attitudes to rural areas. Its not a strictly US thing, go to any country and theres an urban/rural divide. It maybe seems stronger in the US due to the media saturation/cultural export there [ look at us, Irish people discussing the US elections...and more than likely mirrored by many people across the entire world...] but when you read some of the comments and blogs of both sides, its a fairly bitter divide at some points. .

    Haha you are totally wrong dude!! Ha

    The Democratic party has traditionally had great success with poor rural voters in the South. The Republican party garnering much of its support from wealthy business urban dwellers.

    When the Republicans started to really manipulate the weak-minded poor religious people of the South they had them. They aint gonna vote against God now are they?


  • Options
    #249
    Hobbes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    It can? Can you post us to where you got that gem from?


  • Options
    #250
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #251
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Well the act was proposed by, and voted for, by a Republican controlled Congress. And lest you think that Obama forgets that Clinton signed off on it - think again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    But yet when it was liberalised a little we get the biggest financial crises in almost 80 years. Here is what Obama has to say on the subject and I agree with him.
    Barak Obama wrote:
    The argument is not to go back to the regulatory framework of the 1930's because, as I said, the financial markets have changed substantially. The question is, how do we build new regulatory systems that are flexible, that reflect new realities, that aren't going to put undue constraints on innovation in the financial markets, but nevertheless will encourage the transparency and accountability that we need and will maintain trust between investors and counterparties and the banks so that you don't see what's happening right now, which is a complete lock-up of the credit system. It's, as I think has been noted by a number of people, this is sort of a 21st century version of a bank run. And what happened when there were runs on banks in the - during the Depression era is that Congress moved in with FDIC and Glass-Stiegel and other laws to assure that confidence would be maintained and excessive risks could be curbed and that investors or depositors could have confidence.

    We need a counterpart for that, but it doesn't mean just looking back to the 1930's; it means creating some new mechanisms. And that's something that I want to convene and make happen as president of the United States.

    source


  • Options
    #253
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #254
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #255
    Hobbes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Thanks it help me find more information about it. Tell me have you bothered to see who actually voted on the bill and what the Republicans did between the bill passing and now to stop the subprime mortgage crisis? Seeing as they were in power for at least 5 of the years the bill was around. Also that Boston news story appears to be quoting from a Republican think tanks review of the situation.

    Also did you determine what Bush did right yet? And how do you feel now that I have pointed out that there were in fact Terrorist attacks against America since 9/11?


  • Options
    #256
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Well it depends on who you ask there are many theories out there. A different one would be that it was caused by under consumption and oversupply as a result of bankers and governments reneging on their responsibility to properly regulate the market.


  • Options
    #257
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    One theory amongst many. There's the counter view that the lack of government intervention at the initial stages was the cause.


  • Options
    #258
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #259
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #260
    Martyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭Martyr


    But this editorial correctly traces it to policies that the Clinton administration was pursuing in the 1990s

    what about GRAMM - LEACH - BLILEY ACT ????

    Phil Gramm was McCains economic advisor..why do you ignore the facts?


  • Options
    #261
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    Martyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭Martyr


    Signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999.

    YES, of course he did.

    It was voted for by US Congress..

    He didn't personally decide to repeal it, thats what you're informing everyone here.

    More fantasy..

    I can forgive you for blaming Clinton. Since GW came to power, he just ignores US Congress and does what he wants.


  • Options
    #263
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #264
    Martyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭Martyr


    Veto? i didn't know there was a presidential veto, care to explain?

    I thought in a democracy, people voted for changes in the law.


  • Options
    #265
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #266
    Martyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭Martyr


    You're still ignoring the FACTS, donegalfella.
    Trying to place all the blame for repeal of Steagall-Glass act on Bill Clinton.

    Even when you know now that it was what financial institutions wanted since the 80's and what REPUBLICANS, Gramm-Leach-Bliley lobbied for.

    Wonder how much they got paid for that :P

    At the end of the day, US Congress voted for the change.


  • Options
    #267
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    You're really annoying me with this partisan head bashing. The Dems and the GOP were both to blame in equal measure. Stop trying to put all the blame on the dems. It's this sort of behaviour that turns people off political campaigns.


  • Options
    #268
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #269
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #270
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Martyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭Martyr


    When a Republican president signs a bill that you don't like, you blame the president personally and exonerate everyone else.

    Is that it?

    What are you talking about?

    You're just trying to change the subject now because you know you were wrong.

    It sounds more like your logic.


Advertisement