Do Republicans hate the constitution?

[SMEAC]

Stop right wing spinning this.

You blatantly lied and said you didn't. You're a liar. Plain as day

Stop pretending you understand words and are making a point the kong

Cute that you are attempting to make your lack of comprehension of the language a political issue, damn dictionary people.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Don't forget the other part of the tale: Those naive banks were getting fooled by devious poor people that the gov't was forcing them to lend to.

With the truly nefarious plan of ruining their own credit and contributing to a global financial recession that affected them far more than any one else. Damn those rascally poor people!

 

[lfd0311]

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. If there were no bubble in subprime, the bubble in the rest of the housing market wouldn't have been quite as bad, I guess. Not sure how that would have been possible, though. And the gov't wasn't meddling in the affairs of banks for political reasons. As I noted, unregulated entities were seeing lending standards fall faster than regulated ones. How can you possibly explain that with your framework? How do you explain the worldwide nature of the bubble?



That's what I said. ???



Don't forget the other part of the tale: Those naive banks were getting fooled by devious poor people that the gov't was forcing them to lend to.

apparently you didn't understand the difference between "World wide" and "In the US" I'm sure you'll rationalize that somehow as "lfd0311 is stupid." Oh well. And yes, they absolutely were meddling in the affairs of banks for political reasons. Those pesky old banks are racist and whatnot, remember?

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

apparently you didn't understand the difference between "World wide" and "In the US" I'm sure you'll rationalize that somehow as "lfd0311 is stupid." Oh well. And yes, they absolutely were meddling in the affairs of banks for political reasons. Those pesky old banks are racist and whatnot, remember?

Thanks for glossing over the link I sent you.

It's much easier to ignore the truth than acknowledge it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

apparently you didn't understand the difference between "World wide" and "In the US" I'm sure you'll rationalize that somehow as "lfd0311 is stupid." Oh well. And yes, they absolutely were meddling in the affairs of banks for political reasons. Those pesky old banks are racist and whatnot, remember?

Hmm. So the CRA passed in 1977, and then 25 years later at the exact same time that a worldwide housing bubble was forming which included bubbles in commercial real estate and other forms of real estate in the U.S. (and was primarily driven by loan originators who weren't even subject to the CRA), it started to cause a bubble in subprime (and even the subprime bubble specifically was mostly originators not subject to the CRA). OK. I don't think "lfdwhatever is stupid" is a rationalization of anything. It's kind of an unavoidable conclusion, though.

BTW, for anyone who is really interested in the issue (and not just in regurgitating propaganda), here's a good paper on it:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

It's very readably written and not long.

 

[lfd0311]

Thanks for glossing over the link I sent you.

It's much easier to ignore the truth than acknowledge it.

I didn't realize you had posted a link to me until you sent this to me. I will go and read it.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

apparently you didn't understand the difference between "World wide" and "In the US" I'm sure you'll rationalize that somehow as "lfd0311 is stupid." Oh well. And yes, they absolutely were meddling in the affairs of banks for political reasons. Those pesky old banks are racist and whatnot, remember?

Thanks for glossing over the link I sent you.

It's much easier to ignore the truth than acknowledge it.

 

[lfd0311]

Hmm. So the CRA passed in 1977, and then 25 years later at the exact same time that a worldwide housing bubble was forming which included bubbles in commercial real estate and other forms of real estate in the U.S. (and was primarily driven by loan originators who weren't even subject to the CRA), it started to cause a bubble in subprime. OK. I don't think "lfdwhatever is stupid" is a rationalization of anything. It's kind of an unavoidable conclusion, though.

Of course you'll ignore the stricter and stricter enforcement of the CRA, those pesky "Government housing policies" I was talking about earlier, throughout the 90's and continuing right up to the crisis. That will be ignored. The way Liberals basically weaponized it to force banks to loan out money to people that they would not have otherwise to forward their political agenda. Of course you'll ignore that. Bring up it's foundation in the 70's but ignore the way it was actually used in those 25 years you referenced. You're such a shameless, predicable clown.

 

[carlos cadona]

Everyone hates the constitution because it eventually gets in the way of your political goals, people only like the constitution as an abstract idea not a reality.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Of course you'll ignore the stricter and stricter enforcement of the CRA, those pesky "Government housing policies" I was talking about earlier, throughout the 90's and continuing right up to the crisis. That will be ignored.

Which ones are you referring to and what are the dates?

I'd bet anything that you won't be able to answer that question (or you'll have to retract).

 

[lfd0311]

Which ones are you referring to and what are the dates?

I'd bet anything that you won't be able to answer that question (or you'll have to retract).

Legislative Changes in 1992 and 1993 and the regulatory changes in 1995. But hey, the arrogant, superior attitude will get you somewhere

 

[Jack V Savage]

Legislative Changes in 1992 and 1993 and the regulatory changes 1995. But hey, the arrogant, superior attitude will get you somewhere

You looked it up. So previously you said, "I was talking about earlier, throughout the 90's and continuing right up to the crisis." But you now you admit that there was nothing after 1995. So your claim is that a decade after the last change and right at the same time that there was a worldwide housing bubble and a U.S. commercial real estate bubble, etc., the CRA was causing a subprime bubble, even though most of the increase in subprime loans was coming from originators not subject to CRA regs. Does that really make sense to you?

 

[lfd0311]

You looked it up. So previously you said, "I was talking about earlier, throughout the 90's and continuing right up to the crisis." But you now you admit that there was nothing after 1995. So your claim is that a decade after the last change and right at the same time that there was a worldwide housing bubble and a U.S. commercial real estate bubble, etc., the CRA was causing a subprime bubble, even though most of the increase in subprime loans was coming from originators not subject to CRA regs. Does that really make sense to you?

Yes, I did look it up. Just like you look up most of the stuff you talk about, despite pretending that you don't. So stuff that happens in the 90's stopped having affect? I'll be sure to remember that the next time you go on a rant about how institutional racism goes all the way back to slavery.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

How is this sort of posting different than comments responded to with "All Obama does is blame Bush?"?
You're avoiding the point and muddying things up. Is McConnell wrong? Yes or no?

Yes, he's wrong, just like the dems were wrong.

It's disengenuous for the Democrats to complain about a practice they have engaged in.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes, I did look it up. Just like you look up most of the stuff you talk about, despite pretending that you don't.

I don't pretend I don't look stuff up. ??? I think any decent person should make an effort to get things right. What I think is funny is that you trusted your source on your claim and then looked it up and instead of backing off, you just put it forth as if it was still correct.

So stuff that happens in the 90's stopped having affect? I'll be sure to remember that the next time you go on a rant about how institutional racism goes all the way back to slavery.

Huh? Stuff that happened in the early '90s wouldn't explain a trend that began later. To run with your example, the legacy of institutional racism is a big part of why blacks and whites with the same income and educational attainment have vastly different amounts of wealth (because blacks were directly and indirectly prevented from amassing wealth, which prevented them from making intergenerational wealth transfers). If that were a more recent development, one would have to look for a more recent cause.

 

[kpt018]

because I was 99% sure and don't feel like looking

you guys do that shit all the time, frame both sides of a debate and then get people to argue a point you made.

the last I read, you agreed with dochter that another poster should back up you low voter turn out conspiracy

Yeah, because you're a hack that makes negative claims about posters and is too lazy to even back it up.

There is no conspiracy, low voter turnout is a number compared to numbers from prior years. Unless you want to argue 30% is greater than 45% or something.

 

[second sight]

Yeah, because you're a hack that makes negative claims about posters and is too lazy to even back it up.

There is no conspiracy, low voter turnout is a number compared to numbers from prior years. Unless you want to argue 30% is greater than 45% or something.

We've already established that I was correct, so get out of here with this negative claim bullshit.
I already explained what took place don't play dumb and resort to name calling when you've been exposed. You made an excuse of low voter turn out and now expect him to defend a statement you made.

Now you have dochter asking him to defend your claim. I don't give a shit about any of this, I'm justing pointing out how you guys play the game.
Attack the poster, attack the source and frame both sides of the debate then try to fool posters into arguing your points.

 

[kpt018]

We've already established that I was correct, so get out of here with this negative claim bullshit.
I already explained what took place don't play dumb and resort to name calling when you've been exposed. You made an excuse of low voter turn out and now expect him to defend a statement you made.

Now you have dochter asking him to defend your claim. I don't give a shit about any of this, I'm justing pointing out how you guys play the game.
Attack the poster, attack the source and frame both sides of the debate then try to fool posters into arguing your points.

WTF are you talking about? Correct about what? I didn't even mention Doc.

I am stating an indisputable fact based on math and you haven't begun to make a logical argument against the position that low voter turnout effects elections (which is completely uncontroversial to anyone with half a brain). All you did was claim that I bait people, fail to back it up and say you're 99% sure.

You're being dishonest and refuse to argue in good faith.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Politically, how is this any different than the Democrats who want to do away with the electoral college?

It's pretty different. Eliminating the electoral college (which would be excellent) would require changing the constitution. This is a question of who is following the constitution and who isn't.

My personal feeling is that the Senate is not constitutionally obligated to approve any of Obama's nominees. Mostly because the constitution is relatively vague on what happens if the Senate refuses to do so, likely because the founders didn't anticipate an opposition party that refuses to do anything. The Senate has spent most of its history being a very gentlemanly, collegial body that simply didn't do things like this. That hasn't been true since W's administration (regardless of who was in power), but it really screws things up because a lot of the workings of the Senate are dependent upon people following traditions and forms. Even if Hillary or Bernie are elected if the Dems don't take back the Senate I'm not sure there's any constitutional reason the GOP couldn't reject all their nominees for the entirety of their terms without offering any explanation. Of course, that would leave a lot of liberal lower court decisions stand so they're better off approving a moderate liberal, but they don't seem that far sighted.

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

Under the constitution the POTUS has the right and the duty to appoint justices to the SCOTUS. Nowhere in the constitution it says that this right ceases to exist in the last year of the presidency or when potential future candidates have started their race to become candidates in the next election.

And it's not last week of December, Obama's term goes for almost another year, that's 25% of the term he has been elected for.

Does it say in the constitution that certain rights or duties go only for 75% of the term? Do we want Obama to pull a Hendricks?

Should Senators whose seat will be up for grabs come November not vote on Obama's nominee then?

Nah they just behaving like asses