FACT: Regulatory changes under Clinton caused the crisis
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
But back to the point, if you agree that Clinton's rewriting of the Community Reinvestment Act put pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods, and you understand that lending to borrowers with little ability to pay fueled this crisis, then you must acknowledge that Clinton's acts have a causal relationship to the outcome.
Thanks for playing.
Thanks for playing.
"It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment."
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Gee, I dunno, maybe all of them? And for the record, I despise the Democrats nearly as much as Bush and his neocon cohorts--none of their nefarious plans would have been put into place without the support of the spineless plutocrats that call themselves Democrats.
The Democrats have been responsible for some of the worst transgressions of civil liberties and human rights in this country's history.
Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions before you spout off.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
For starters, the telecommunication companies in collusion with the NSA and warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. The suspension of habeas corpus was another major blow to our civil liberties.
Or maybe you're one of the people for whom the irony of eliminating our rights to protect them escapes you.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Then you're either not paying enough attention or you're purposely turning a blind eye because you're a partisan shill.
For starters, the telecommunication companies in collusion with the NSA and warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. The suspension of habeas corpus was another major blow to our civil liberties.
Or maybe you're one of the people for whom the irony of eliminating our rights to protect them escapes you.
For starters, the telecommunication companies in collusion with the NSA and warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. The suspension of habeas corpus was another major blow to our civil liberties.
Or maybe you're one of the people for whom the irony of eliminating our rights to protect them escapes you.
The comment was made that civil liberties have been reduced under Bush's Rule.
The suspension of habeas corpus has been happened a few times in the past.
All during a war or after a traumatic situation.
Funny that you didn't mention Bill Clinton's quasi suspension of habeas corpus.
Oh well.
I still maintain that you have not lost one civil liberty.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Calm down, junior.
The comment was made that civil liberties have been reduced under Bush's Rule.
The suspension of habeas corpus has been happened a few times in the past.
All during a war or after a traumatic situation.
Funny that you didn't mention Bill Clinton's quasi suspension of habeas corpus.
Oh well.
I still maintain that you have not lost one civil liberty.
The comment was made that civil liberties have been reduced under Bush's Rule.
The suspension of habeas corpus has been happened a few times in the past.
All during a war or after a traumatic situation.
Funny that you didn't mention Bill Clinton's quasi suspension of habeas corpus.
Oh well.
I still maintain that you have not lost one civil liberty.
I didn't mention Clinton because we were talking about changes made by Bush. Don't try to paint me as a partisan hack like yourself; I've made my disdain for both parties clear in several discussions.
Habeas corpus and freedom of the press have been suspended numerous times, most notably by Lincoln, FDR and Bush--all of whom happen to be some of the worst offenders when it comes to trampling all over our civil liberties.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Do you also believe that the world is flat? The increase in unchecked federal government power and the decrease of our privacy under Bush is an irrefutable fact. Reduced does not equate to removal, "Junior."
I didn't mention Clinton because we were talking about changes made by Bush. Don't try to paint me as a partisan hack like yourself; I've made my disdain for both parties clear in several discussions.
Habeas corpus and freedom of the press have been suspended numerous times, most notably by Lincoln, FDR and Bush--all of whom happen to be some of the worst offenders when it comes to trampling all over our civil liberties.
I didn't mention Clinton because we were talking about changes made by Bush. Don't try to paint me as a partisan hack like yourself; I've made my disdain for both parties clear in several discussions.
Habeas corpus and freedom of the press have been suspended numerous times, most notably by Lincoln, FDR and Bush--all of whom happen to be some of the worst offenders when it comes to trampling all over our civil liberties.
Also, why the offensive tone?
You drop Bush's suspension of habeas corpus as if it's the greatest federal transgression ever, that you are personally affected by it.
I was countering your point by showing you that he has done nothing different than what at least three other presidents have done; suspending Habeas corpus during times of war.
Now, if you choose to take my defense of Bush as a rabid supporter of his, well, that's your problem and mistake.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Almost everything that you post comes out across clearly defined party lines and talking points. Seriously, that's how you come off.
Because of your condescending attitude. I'm not your son or a child, so please don't call me "junior."
No, I simply cited it as an example, which you asked for. The point I listed first I find to be much worse--which is why I listed it first. You inferred a level of importance that is contrary to reality. 
Actually, you merely threw out that it had been done before, and immediately fell onto party lines by claiming that Bill Clinton had done the same--which he hadn't. I'm the one that told you which other presidents have actually suspended it previously.
And for the record, Clinton did not suspend habeas corpus; he approved the AEDPA Act of 1996, which had one single limitation placed upon habeas corpus: a statute of limitations of one year after conviction for prisoners seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The Act was written in response to the Oklahoma City bombing, by the way. A far cry from "suspending" it, as you claimed. Check your sources.
I did not say you are a Bush supporter, I said you are a partisan shill.
Anyone who supports an increase in the power or influence of the federal government is not a true conservative.
Because of your condescending attitude. I'm not your son or a child, so please don't call me "junior."
And for the record, Clinton did not suspend habeas corpus; he approved the AEDPA Act of 1996, which had one single limitation placed upon habeas corpus: a statute of limitations of one year after conviction for prisoners seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The Act was written in response to the Oklahoma City bombing, by the way. A far cry from "suspending" it, as you claimed. Check your sources.
Anyone who supports an increase in the power or influence of the federal government is not a true conservative.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Almost everything that you post comes out across clearly defined party lines and talking points. Seriously, that's how you come off.
Because of your condescending attitude. I'm not your son or a child, so please don't call me "junior."
No, I simply cited it as an example, which you asked for. The point I listed first I find to be much worse--which is why I listed it first. You inferred a level of importance that is contrary to reality.
Actually, you merely threw out that it had been done before, and immediately fell onto party lines by claiming that Bill Clinton had done the same--which he hadn't. I'm the one that told you which other presidents have actually suspended it previously.
And for the record, Clinton did not suspend habeas corpus; he approved the AEDPA Act of 1996, which had one single limitation placed upon habeas corpus: a statute of limitations of one year after conviction for prisoners seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The Act was written in response to the Oklahoma City bombing, by the way. A far cry from "suspending" it, as you claimed. Check your sources.
I did not say you are a Bush supporter, I said you are a partisan shill.
Anyone who supports an increase in the power or influence of the federal government is not a true conservative.
Because of your condescending attitude. I'm not your son or a child, so please don't call me "junior."
No, I simply cited it as an example, which you asked for. The point I listed first I find to be much worse--which is why I listed it first. You inferred a level of importance that is contrary to reality.
Actually, you merely threw out that it had been done before, and immediately fell onto party lines by claiming that Bill Clinton had done the same--which he hadn't. I'm the one that told you which other presidents have actually suspended it previously.
And for the record, Clinton did not suspend habeas corpus; he approved the AEDPA Act of 1996, which had one single limitation placed upon habeas corpus: a statute of limitations of one year after conviction for prisoners seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The Act was written in response to the Oklahoma City bombing, by the way. A far cry from "suspending" it, as you claimed. Check your sources.
I did not say you are a Bush supporter, I said you are a partisan shill.
Anyone who supports an increase in the power or influence of the federal government is not a true conservative.
You have not told me anything new.
I suggest you read up on the AEDPA before brushing it off as insignificanct.
Partisan shill...that's amusing...which party do I favor?
You're right!!
They're called Socialists/Democrats.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Good for you. I didn't say that I did.
Actually, wait, yes I did; I corrected your misstatement re: Clinton.
Logic should dictate to you that if I know enough about the AEDPA to call you on your false claim, then I obviously have "read up" on it.
This is a ridiculous question, and likely nothing more than an attempt at baiting me, but I'll bite because I'm stupid.
It is painfully obvious which party you have a severe dislike for; your criticisms that I have seen thus far have been mostly directed only at one side of the party line.
To be honest though, I shouldn't even have had to dignify that with a response, hah.
... plus the current so-called "Republicans," aka neo-cons.
And they're called "state-socialists," actually. Socialism is not necessarily compulsory, nor run by government.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has upheld that it provides a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
If you are saying that you should have no right to privacy, then you are saying that you have no problem with a government that can spy on its citizens at any time for any reason--or no reason at all. If that's the case, then you have no problem with a totalitarian government, and would be more at home in the USSR, China, or **** Germany.
If you are saying that you should have no right to privacy, then you are saying that you have no problem with a government that can spy on its citizens at any time for any reason--or no reason at all. If that's the case, then you have no problem with a totalitarian government, and would be more at home in the USSR, China, or **** Germany.
The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has upheld that it provides a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
If you are saying that you should have no right to privacy, then you are saying that you have no problem with a government that can spy on its citizens at any time for any reason--or no reason at all. If that's the case, then you have no problem with a totalitarian government, and would be more at home in the USSR, China, or **** Germany.
If you are saying that you should have no right to privacy, then you are saying that you have no problem with a government that can spy on its citizens at any time for any reason--or no reason at all. If that's the case, then you have no problem with a totalitarian government, and would be more at home in the USSR, China, or **** Germany.
etiher 100% black and white (you sound like you should be in USSR **** germany or china )
and you dont read well
the question is where in the constitution does it say teh word privacy?
yes its implied / interprited but never garunteed