Is this a hate crime? Part 2

[dviss1]

When someone is so far up the liberal ass, they are commies. When Conservatives are so far up conservative's ass, they are facists

My guess is you have no clue of what these even mean....

 

[riverman]

When someone is so far up the liberal ass, they are commies. When Conservatives are so far up conservative's ass, they are facists

from debate police to ass police...so you want to divide the opposition into commies and fascists...ok

 

[magnifier661]

from debate police to ass police...so you want to divide the opposition into commies and fascists...ok

Well at least we agree that Obama DIDN'T inherit a worse economy than Reagan

 

[magnifier661]

My guess is you have no clue of what these even mean....

Like how you have NO CLUE about economy?

 

[dviss1]

History lesson.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Iran-Contra_Affair


Michael Ledeen, a consultant of National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, requested assistance from Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres for help in the sale of arms to Iran.[16] At the time, Iran was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War and could find few Western nations willing to supply it with weapons.[17] The idea behind the plan was for Israel to ship weapons through an intermediary (identified as Manucher Ghorbanifar)[1] to a moderate, politically influential Iranian group opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeni;[18] after the transaction, the U.S. would reimburse Israel with the same weapons, while receiving monetary benefits. The Israeli government required that the sale of arms meet high level approval from the United States government, and when Robert McFarlane convinced them that the U.S. government approved the sale, Israel obliged by agreeing to sell the arms.[16]

In 1985, President Reagan entered Bethesda Naval Hospital for colon cancer surgery. While recovering in the hospital, McFarlane met with the president and told him that Representatives from Israel had contacted the National Security Agency to pass on confidential information from a sect of moderate, politically influential Iranians opposed to the Ayatollah.[18] These Iranians sought to establish a quiet relationship with the United States, before establishing formal relationships upon the death of the Ayatollah.[18] McFarlane told Reagan that the Iranians, to demonstrate their seriousness, offered to persuade the Hezbollah terrorists to release the seven U.S. hostages.[19] Reagan allowed McFarlane to meet with the Israeli intermediaries because, according to him, establishing relations with a strategically located country, thus preventing the Soviet Union from doing the same, was a beneficial move.[18][20]

Following the Israeli-U.S. meeting, Israel requested permission from the U.S. to sell a small number of TOW antitank missiles to the moderate Iranians,[19] saying that it would demonstrate that the group actually had high-level connections to the U.S. government.[19]Reagan initially rejected the plan, until Israel sent information to the U.S. showing that the moderate Iranians were opposed to terrorism and had fought against it.[21] With a reason to trust the moderates, Reagan authorized the payment to Israel, who would sell the weapons to the moderate Iranians.[19] Reagan was committed to securing the release of the hostages, which motivated his support for the arms initiatives.[1] The president requested that the moderate Iranians do everything in their capability to free the hostages held by Hezbollah.[22]

New World Encyclopedia is a wiki rival created by the Unification Church....

 

[dviss1]

Like how you have NO CLUE about economy?

Just as much as you.

 

[riverman]

Like how you have NO CLUE about economy?

Some really horrible things in history have been really good for the economy..imperialism for example...conquer people, enslave them and make them work for free. The GNP is not guilt free. Habitat for Humanity is not generating huge profits...

 

[dviss1]

There's obviously a lot we don't agree on. I'm headed back over to the Blazer side.

 

[riverman]

There's obviously a lot we don't agree on. I'm headed back over to the Blazer side.

Good move! There we can argue about the value of tanking for the lottery as opposed to getting our young players playoff experience

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't believe so. We didn't have to bail out any banks under Carter. We weren't losing as many jobs per month. Now we have the BEST unemployment rate since 2008 but no one says shit about that.

Unemployment rate doesn't mean so much when the active workforce has shrunk by many millions. Those many millions don't get counted as unemployed, even though they are. Instead they're on disability and foodstamps. Obama is the foodstamp president.

We didn't bail out banks in the 1970s, true. They just failed. The bigger issue was with the S&Ls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis

The relatively greater concentration of S&L lending in mortgages, coupled with a reliance on deposits with short maturities for their funding, made savings institutions especially vulnerable to increases in interest rates. As inflation accelerated and interest rates began to rise rapidly in the late 1970s, many S&Ls began to suffer extensive losses. The rates they had to pay to attract deposits rose sharply, but the amount they earned on long-term, fixed-rate mortgages did not change. Losses began to mount.[7] This led to a regulatory response of forbearance, which is arguably the cause to the symptoms and causes found below. To be clear, it was the practice and enabling of policy that is the cause to the turmoil that the S&L market experienced. Many insolvent thrifts were allowed to remain open, and their financial problems only worsened over time. Moreover, capital standards were reduced both by legislation and by decisions taken by regulators. Federally chartered S&Ls were granted the authority to make new (and ultimately riskier) loans other than residential mortgages

 

[Denny Crane]

You're saying trickle down economics has worked?

Trickle down government is an utter failure. For the price of 10s of $trillions, we have nothing to show for it except for big debt payments.

 

[magnifier661]

Some really horrible things in history have been really good for the economy..imperialism for example...conquer people, enslave them and make them work for free. The GNP is not guilt free. Habitat for Humanity is not generating huge profits...

Nice dodge... The argument was the economy was worse when Obama took office than Reagan. Neither you or Dviss supported this argument

 

[e_blazer]

They didn't control both houses for 2 years, it was only 72 days. Even then, they didn't have 60 votes in the Senate because of the oil whore and the rat pelt.

Republicans had a RECORD number of filibusters (112?) in his first term.

I guess we have a difference of opinion as to what "control" means. I was referring to the fact that the Democrats had majorities in both houses. You are using the term to mean having a super-majority that can override any filibuster or veto. It makes no difference to my argument either way. Both parties have put partisan hackery above the best interests of the country and have created such a polarized environment that gridlock is the new norm. If it were up to me, I'd toss the lot of them out and only elect candidates who possess the good sense to understand that sometimes you have to give something to get something.

The 112 number that Democrats like to throw around in these discussions about how evil and obstructionists the Republicans were in Obama's first term is, like most partisan talking points, bogus. From Wikipedia:

In the 2007–08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes[25] and some have used this number to argue an increase in the number of filibusters occurring in recent times. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.

 

[dviss1]

I guess we have a difference of opinion as to what "control" means. I was referring to the fact that the Democrats had majorities in both houses. You are using the term to mean having a super-majority that can override any filibuster or veto. It makes no difference to my argument either way. Both parties have put partisan hackery above the best interests of the country and have created such a polarized environment that gridlock is the new norm. If it were up to me, I'd toss the lot of them out and only elect candidates who possess the good sense to understand that sometimes you have to give something to get something.

The 112 number that Democrats like to throw around in these discussions about how evil and obstructionists the Republicans were in Obama's first term is, like most partisan talking points, bogus. From Wikipedia:

Wikipedia has never been a good source of info. Jussayin

 

[Denny Crane]

New World Encyclopedia is a wiki rival created by the Unification Church....

The details are true.

We dealt with moderate Iranians. i remember that on the news at the time, it was rumored the Ayatollah was dead and there was infighting to see who'd take over.

If there weren't such a mess made of Iran by Carter and the resistance to Reagan's overtures to make peace with a moderate led Iran, we might not be needing some nuke deal with militant extremists.

 

[riverman]

Nice dodge... The argument was the economy was worse when Obama took office than Reagan. Neither you or Dviss supported this argument

I'm not playing dodge ball but if you actually paid attention, I said it's a collective problem that spans several administrations. You are obsessed with your bipartisan definitions mags. I can agree with dviss or anyone without standing on one side of your wall..I can also disagree with you without being your enemy..someday you may actually understand the difference

 

[Denny Crane]

Saw this speech on TV live, too.

Carter blamed the american people for having a crisis of confidence. Well, duh. He didn't inspire any confidence.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...president-must-avoid-the-jimmy-carter-malaise

 

[magnifier661]

The details are true.

We dealt with moderate Iranians. i remember that on the news at the time, it was rumored the Ayatollah was dead and there was infighting to see who'd take over.

If there weren't such a mess made of Iran by Carter and the resistance to Reagan's overtures to make peace with a moderate led Iran, we might not be needing some nuke deal with militant extremists.

Don't you know?! When a liberal will refute anything you provide. If you talk about what a liberal president failed to do, they will Blame Congress. When the liberal blames a conservative president, they ignore the liberal congress. It's really quite sinple

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not playing dodge ball but if you actually paid attention, I said it's a collective problem that spans several administrations. You are obsessed with your bipartisan definitions mags. I can agree with dviss or anyone without standing on one side of your wall..I can also disagree with you without being your enemy..someday you may actually understand the difference

This is true. Things Carter did affected the S&Ls so they gradually failed. GHW Bush did inherit a massive S&L bailout crisis.

Reaganomics was so powerful and effective, it took decades before the economic engine was stalled. Coincidentally when Pelosi and Reid took over congress.

Bush called Reaganomics "voodoo" and turned a 5% unemployment rate into a 7.5% one doing it his way. But between Reagan and Clinton, the economy added about 50M new workers. That's 14 of 18 years of solid economic production.

 

[e_blazer]

Wikipedia has never been a good source of info. Jussayin

Helluva lot better than partisan website talking points.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

While I do not agree with some of his views and opinions I believe Jimmy Carter has done great things since leaving the White House. He seems like a truly kind, caring and spiritual man who has worked hard to help people. He is a great American who has set a very high bar for what ex-presidents should do when they leave office.

I have much respect for him.

 

[e_blazer]

Helluva lot better than partisan website talking points.

Maybe a report from the US Senate website would be more to your liking?

This report discusses major aspects of Senate procedure related to filibusters and cloture. The two, however, are not always as closely linked in practice as they are in popular conception. Even when opponents of a measure resort to extended debate or other tactics of delay, supporters may not decide to seek cloture (although this situation seems to have been more common in earlier decades than today). In recent times, by contrast, Senate leadership has increasingly made use of cloture as a normal tool for managing the flow of business on the floor, even when no evident filibuster has yet occurred.

It would be erroneous to assume the presence or absence of cloture attempts is a reliable guide to the presence or absence of filibusters. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.It is also a matter of degree; filibusters may be conducted with greater or lesser determination and persistence. For all these reasons, it is not feasible to construct a definitive list of filibusters.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E,*PLW="P

 

[dviss1]

Maybe a report from the US Senate website would be more to your liking?



http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E,*PLW="P

Can we at least agree that the filibuster (senate rules not part of the constitution) rule should be repealed?

 

[e_blazer]

Can we at least agree that the filibuster (senate rules not part of the constitution) rule should be repealed?

The filibuster has served some good purposes in the history of our country, if only to put a spotlight on a dissenting senator's opinions that otherwise would be lost in the normal debate. That said, I do think that the rules should be amended either by going back to the original majority vote or by simply establishing time limits on how long a senator may speak. Here's a pretty good Wall Street Journal commentary on the issue:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/david-b...r-grabs-kill-the-senate-filibuster-1427153516

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm