| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Democrats caused the collapse | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 26 2008, 03:07 PM (568 Views) | |
| Dwayne | Sep 28 2008, 10:10 AM Post #16 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
I really love how the NYT tries to hang a noose around McCain's neck on the Keating 5 scandal... Ironically (or maybe not) the NYT never mentions that McCain was the only one found innocent and the rest were demcrats. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Sep 28 2008, 10:34 AM Post #17 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Dwayne - if there are more Democrats on the list of those recieving more money - yet Republicans overall recieved more more money doesn't that indicate that more Republicans overall recieved money? So doesn't that translate to more "bribes" for more Republicans. (I know - if legal then not bribes - but this applies to the donations to Democrats as well and I use the term because this is what is being insinuated if not being said out loud) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Sep 28 2008, 10:45 AM Post #18 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
No I don't. Maybe it's you that does so I don't accept the accusations of a politician's campaign leader as "proof" of bias. It is quite normal for someone to cry "bias" when things don't go exactly as they would like. Is the New York Times more biased then the openly biased blogs you link with "proof"? Not likely. Somehow I think the truth is to be found between the lines. And does biased always mean "wrong"? If so then your sources - which are openly biased - would always be wrong. I am not saying that they are. I am saying the truth is not always found in one type of source. There are plenty of liberal blogs out there that I could probably link to if I had the time to go searching. I am sure there are lots of videos that would damn certain Republicans - like the ones that did recieve money. Anyhow - I am off to work. We can continue this later - but I would request that you try to argue the material instead of thinking you won because you made a cute remark about "cyclical arguments" |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Sep 28 2008, 10:50 AM Post #19 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
No, because only certain congressional members have the power to sway legislation via committee appointments. And for the record, since the NYT has been acting as an arm of th DNC, I'm not going to accept their numbers without supporting evidence, especially considering that it seems the Opensecrets.org is in disagreement with the NYT. ADDENDUM: And if you're going to go off on a rip about me citing the NYT articles from 1999 and 2003, I will have to point out I provided other information that helped to substantiate the information I was deriving from the NYT articles. Edited by Dwayne, Sep 28 2008, 11:14 AM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Sep 28 2008, 11:52 AM Post #20 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Can anyone provide the blog I've supposedly cited in talking about this issue? For the record, I'd much rather get my information from a source that's open and upfront about it's biases, than from a source who claims no biases, yet is riddled with them. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Sep 28 2008, 04:35 PM Post #21 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Dwayne - the figures were not from the New York Times. The quote with regards to Republicans getting more money when they were in power was from the article that YOU linked, from OpenSecrets.org. I did make that clear in my initial statement. So I point out again that they got more money overall - it was just spread out over more people so less Republicans are on the top recieving list. Edited by Minuet, Sep 28 2008, 04:38 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Sep 28 2008, 06:54 PM Post #22 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
My apologies on the missed citation... That said, your point doesn't have one. So what? During a period of time, democrats got 47% of the money Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were giving out, and then it went higher. How does that comport with the fact that from 1989 to 2008, Barack Obama, who only recently entered the Senate, received enough money to be ranked 3rd? Or the fact that Sen. Dodd chairs the committee directly overseeing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and he received more money that anyone from those organizations? The point is not what party received money, but who received that money and what committees they were on, then once that is considered can you start to consider the political party they are in. You see, I don't think the DNC is any more corrupt or corruptable than the GOP... or any group for that matter. Human nature is what it is. I'm just sick and tired of the one sidedness in the media over this, so frankly I vent here. Edited by Dwayne, Sep 28 2008, 07:45 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Sep 28 2008, 09:10 PM Post #23 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
So to combat the "one sidedness" of the media you overstate your case and the result is that your opinion is just as one sided. Maybe it works for some, but I tend to take a different approach. I do think there were a lot of factors at play. I am not an economist by any stretch of the imagination but from what I see there were a lot of factors at play here and enough blame to go around. Bad business practices compounded by too little oversight. I am just glad at this point that the Canadian banks remained more "conservative" (by which I mean traditional and cautious) in thier approach to the mortgage business then the American and British banks. We also have more stringent rules. When there is strife worldwide we do feel it, but right now seem to be riding it out pretty well. No collapses here. It will be interesting to see how our economy is affected - but I digress here. Edited by Minuet, Sep 28 2008, 09:11 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Sep 28 2008, 11:42 PM Post #24 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
No, I'm not over stating... What I'm doing is not cutting democrats any slack... I know how money is spread around in the United States Congress and apparently you don't. And Minuet, as I've already stated in other threads, if you can find any instance of a republican arguing for less regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and/or receiving big money of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, then bring it on. Ultimately, since you can't show us a republican arguing that, this whole argument is moot. You are just arguing in circles now. Edited by Dwayne, Sep 28 2008, 11:46 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Sep 29 2008, 08:03 AM Post #25 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
^^^ There are Republicans on the top ten list, so even if there are more Democrats on the top reciever list you produced you are wrong to state flatly that only the Democrats bear responsibility.
Note bold. Your own articles and evidence already show that. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Sep 29 2008, 08:45 AM Post #26 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
^^^ You realize that money is given out to multiple politicians to help spread the influence, and if I were to rewrite that, I'd remove the word "or". Now, where is the evidence that republicans were opposed to more regulation and democrats were in favor? There is none... oh, yes, democrats like to claim otherwise, but if they had the evidence... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Sep 29 2008, 09:14 AM Post #27 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Yes - I realize it is given to multiple politicians to spread the influence - hence my pointing out that more republican INDIVIDUALS recieved money then democrat. And the problem goes far beyond the FM companies. I heard this morning about one company that has collapsed that basically told thier borrowers that they could have the money but did not have to pay a regular monthly payment. Stupid companies run by stupid greedy people that may have had no political affiliation at all. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Sep 29 2008, 09:50 AM Post #28 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
But we're talking about specific government-backed companies, so don't change the subject. And still, you're blatantly ignoring the nexus of contributions, committee chairmenships, issues advocated and statements/interviews recorded. There's only one party where all this meets. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Sep 29 2008, 03:04 PM Post #29 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
And just another example of how democrats on committee chairs directly benefitted from a cozy relationship with mortgage lenders who they were supposed to provide oversight ... Sens. Dodd, Conrad Received Favorable Loans From Countrywide |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Oct 11 2008, 10:44 PM Post #30 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Here's a May 5, 2006, letter that was signed by McCain and 19 other Senators, and succinctly describes the problem and what effect it might have if things went south... http://www.powerlineblog.com/letter_050506c.php ![]() Now where is Obama's letter? There is none. All we have is his increasingly worthless word. Edited by Dwayne, Oct 11 2008, 10:47 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:14 PM Jul 11