More Stupid Trump Voters now crying at their own choice...

[Flash]

Bullshit. The CRA was NOT the cause of the housing bubble. De-regulation meant that Wall Street could make far more money on sub-prime mortgages than conventional mortgages and Goldman Sachs went on a sub-prime spree, packaging the high risk loans into derivatives which they sold for further profit.

Republicans have bent over backwards to pin this on Carter and Clinton pointing out that lame duck Clinton signed the legislation de-regulating the banks, passed by a Republican Congress and Senate, and Carter signed the original CRA. But it wasn't the CRA, and it wasn't Freddie or Fanny Mae, it was Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, and the Republicans that did it.

There was no "deregulation," dumbass.

The Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999.

First, the GLB Act of 1999, can't be used to explain a sub-prime bubble that started in 1997.

Second, the GLB Act did nothing..... let me repeat that and make it absolutely clear.... NOTHING..... that had any effect either way on the sub-prime lending, or the vast majority of institutions involved.

If the GLB Act had not been passed.... there is not one aspect of the sub-prime crash that would have changed. Not one. Not even one.

The only connection between GLB Act, and the sub-prime mortgage crash, is one that the left, generally denies.

The Act made all mergers between banks, be required to meet CRA standards before they could be approved.

So if a Bank wanted to do a merge, they had to meet lending standards to minorities and special interest groups.

Gramm had maintained that he did not want anything in the bill that would expand the application of the Community Reinvestment Act because it was, he said, unnecessarily burdensome to banks. He had sought a provision that would exempt thousands of smaller banks from the law.

But the White House found that provision unacceptable and had its own ideas about community lending. It wanted the legislation to prevent any bank with an unsatisfactory record of making loans to the disadvantaged from expanding into new areas, like insurance or securities.

The White House had insisted that the President would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements.

Agreement Reached on Overhaul of U.S. Financial System
​

In effect, the GLB Act INCREASED regulations on banks.

Beyond this, the GLB Act had nothing to do with the crash whatsoever.

The only even attempt to claim a connection, is allowing Insurance,Retail, Commercial, and investment banks to merge.

The problem is, the vast majority of the banks that failed... didn't do that. So they would not have been affected, had the GLB Act never existed.

AIG was only an insurance company. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Bear Stearns was an investment bank. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Country Wide was an investment bank. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Indymac was only Retail. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Lehman Brothers was only an investment bank. GLB Act did not affect them either way.

Without spending the next 6 pages listing each bank failure, the vast majority were all single business corporations, that would not have been affected by GLB Act at all. Nothing would have changed.

By the way, neither Europe nor Canada, has never had the restrictions on banks, that GLB Act removed.

This argument is getting as old as if Hitler was a lefty or Righty



Both the Republicans and Democrats were responsible

And Hitler was neither, just nuts

I don't care about political parties.

I'm talking about the ideology. The claim that there was "deregulation" and if only we had more regulation, then we would have solved this.... is proven false.

Regulation never solves anything. Before this crash, we had the most highly regulated banking system in the world.

More regulated than Europe, more than the UK, more than Canada, more than anywhere.

Yet the crash originated here in the US.

Now if you want to look at what policies started the housing bubble, then you need to go back to the Clinton Administration.

That's not partisanship. That's fact. If you want to argue the facts don't matter, and do this copout game of "Well... everyone is to blame!".... Then all you are doing is begging for another crash in the future. Not because democrats blaw blaw blaw blaw..... not because of that. But because when you do this "everyone is to blame" copout, you end up not finding the policies that caused the problem.

The problem started in 1997, when the Clinton Administration, pushed banks, and sued banks, and guaranteed sub-prime loans. This legitimized the market, and the result was a massive price bubble that eventually exploded in 2007. Fact. I can point citations and references for each of those claims. (all of which have been posted on this thread, possibly twice now).

I think I clearly said in my post that the Republicans were partially to blame because they had the opportunity to undo the damage the Democrats did but didn't do it.

I think your timeline is off a little bit. The problem started when the filthy ass CRA was signed into law. However, Clinton enhanced it as you indicated. The guarantees were in response to the pushback on the pressure of the CRA. Once Clinton agreed to provide a safety net for the loans then it was destine to create a failure.

I agree with you. The filthy ass government needs to stop regulating us so much. They always do the wrong thing because they don't do it for the good of the country but for the good of the special interest groups. In this case the special interest groups were the minorities that couldn't get credit. The economy was almost ruined because of that Welfare Queen mentality greed.

Liberals should stop trying to do good because it always turns out to be bad.

 

[Andylusion]

SWEET IRONY. These Trump Voters FORCED to SELL Their Land to Build The WALL, "We Can't Believe It!"

So now these Trump voters are losing their land to build the wall they voted for...lol.
I guess they believed that Trump sees them differently from Black people, Asians, Hispanics, etc.

All of these idiots lost in court...I have no sympathy for them....

I'm confused about this. So his titled land... extends beyond the boarder? How is that possible? Can I buy land in the US, that extends beyond the US? Or did he buy land in Mexico? If he bought land in Mexico... then what is the problem again? The wall is to protect our boarder. He still has his land.... but the land in Mexico, is Mexican land, and the land in the US is US land. He didn't lose either.

Where is the problem again?

Now I get that he doesn't like the boarder fence... but too bad.

I will say I find it ironic that you, being a left-winger claims to have no sympathy for them. When did you people ever have sympathy for anyone you screw over? You take people's land over a mole-rat, spotted squirrels, and striped Minnow. The number of times you people screw over the public is uncountable, and for the dumbest possible reasons. The boarder protection, is actually a constitutional duty of the Federal Government.

You have no such justification for all the things you do.

 

[bripat9643]

The filthy ass CRA Democrat bill to put government pressure on the lenders to give credit to people that normally would not qualify was the root cause of the disaster. Then in 2007 we had Barney Queerboy as chairman of the Finance committee, which provided oversight. What could possibly go wrong? On top of that the government gave assurances that if anything did go wrong then they would cover the lenders with bailouts, which is exactly what happen.

No Moon Bat. That collapse in 2007 was caused by the Democrat' idea of social justice to lend money to people that neither had the means or the ability to pay it back. Those chickens came home to roost and combine that with the incompetent Democrat oversight and that created the disaster.

All you have to do to connect those dots is to look at the government pressure that was used by the CRA to create lax lending practices, the Democrats taking over Congress in 2007 and the bailouts. Dirty government. You can blame Bush for not stopping the CRA when he had a Republican Congress but the much bigger blame goes to the Democrats for creating the mess with the stupid CRA and mismanaging it in the Congressional oversight committees.

Bullshit. The CRA was NOT the cause of the housing bubble. De-regulation meant that Wall Street could make far more money on sub-prime mortgages than conventional mortgages and Goldman Sachs went on a sub-prime spree, packaging the high risk loans into derivatives which they sold for further profit.

Republicans have bent over backwards to pin this on Carter and Clinton pointing out that lame duck Clinton signed the legislation de-regulating the banks, passed by a Republican Congress and Senate, and Carter signed the original CRA. But it wasn't the CRA, and it wasn't Freddie or Fanny Mae, it was Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, and the Republicans that did it.

There was no "deregulation," dumbass.

The Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999.

First, the GLB Act of 1999, can't be used to explain a sub-prime bubble that started in 1997.

Second, the GLB Act did nothing..... let me repeat that and make it absolutely clear.... NOTHING..... that had any effect either way on the sub-prime lending, or the vast majority of institutions involved.

If the GLB Act had not been passed.... there is not one aspect of the sub-prime crash that would have changed. Not one. Not even one.

The only connection between GLB Act, and the sub-prime mortgage crash, is one that the left, generally denies.

The Act made all mergers between banks, be required to meet CRA standards before they could be approved.

So if a Bank wanted to do a merge, they had to meet lending standards to minorities and special interest groups.

Gramm had maintained that he did not want anything in the bill that would expand the application of the Community Reinvestment Act because it was, he said, unnecessarily burdensome to banks. He had sought a provision that would exempt thousands of smaller banks from the law.

But the White House found that provision unacceptable and had its own ideas about community lending. It wanted the legislation to prevent any bank with an unsatisfactory record of making loans to the disadvantaged from expanding into new areas, like insurance or securities.

The White House had insisted that the President would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements.

Agreement Reached on Overhaul of U.S. Financial System
​

In effect, the GLB Act INCREASED regulations on banks.

Beyond this, the GLB Act had nothing to do with the crash whatsoever.

The only even attempt to claim a connection, is allowing Insurance,Retail, Commercial, and investment banks to merge.

The problem is, the vast majority of the banks that failed... didn't do that. So they would not have been affected, had the GLB Act never existed.

AIG was only an insurance company. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Bear Stearns was an investment bank. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Country Wide was an investment bank. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Indymac was only Retail. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Lehman Brothers was only an investment bank. GLB Act did not affect them either way.

Without spending the next 6 pages listing each bank failure, the vast majority were all single business corporations, that would not have been affected by GLB Act at all. Nothing would have changed.

By the way, neither Europe nor Canada, has never had the restrictions on banks, that GLB Act removed.

This argument is getting as old as if Hitler was a lefty or Righty



Both the Republicans and Democrats were responsible

And Hitler was neither, just nuts

It was old 8 years ago.

 

[bripat9643]

CNN huh?

Yep....

Nope. Never ceases to amaze me that you twits don't fact-check yourselves.

Trump's border wall will require fight to take private land - Chicago ...
www.chicagotribune.com/news/.../ct-border-wall-take-private-land-20170321-story.h...
Mar 21, 2017 - Trump's border wall will require fight to take private land ... Donald Trump will have to seize private land in order to build a border wall. ... To build the wall along the nearly 2,000-mile border — and fulfill a key campaign ...
Trump budget includes eminent domain for border-wall land ...
www.businessinsider.com/trump-budget-border-wall-land-acquisition-eminent-domai...
Mar 16, 2017 - "The United States of America is acquiring property along itsborder with ... fights with landowners from Texas to California over theseizure of private ... A boy watching US workers build a section of a US-Mexico border wall.
Private land could be seized to build Trump's border wall :: WRAL.com
www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/video/16629132/
The federal government could seize private land to build President Donald Trump's proposed wall along the US-Mexico border.
Donald Trump's Border Wall Puts Residents at Risk of Losing Their ...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/donald...border-wall.../521958/
Apr 6, 2017 - Building a physical barrier along the border is a tall order: it ... to seize property from private landowners and turn it over to a privatedeveloper. ... “If they're building a wall in Texas, it means they are buildingon private land, ...

When did eminent domain ever become an issue previously when the federal government wanted to build something? Did any of these fake news outlets have lead stories about all the people who were being pushed off their land to build I-10? How about Denver International Airport? Grand Coulee Damn? Hanford nuclear reactor? When did libtards suddenly become anti-eminent domain?

 

[Andylusion]

There was no "deregulation," dumbass.

The Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999.

First, the GLB Act of 1999, can't be used to explain a sub-prime bubble that started in 1997.

Second, the GLB Act did nothing..... let me repeat that and make it absolutely clear.... NOTHING..... that had any effect either way on the sub-prime lending, or the vast majority of institutions involved.

If the GLB Act had not been passed.... there is not one aspect of the sub-prime crash that would have changed. Not one. Not even one.

The only connection between GLB Act, and the sub-prime mortgage crash, is one that the left, generally denies.

The Act made all mergers between banks, be required to meet CRA standards before they could be approved.

So if a Bank wanted to do a merge, they had to meet lending standards to minorities and special interest groups.

Gramm had maintained that he did not want anything in the bill that would expand the application of the Community Reinvestment Act because it was, he said, unnecessarily burdensome to banks. He had sought a provision that would exempt thousands of smaller banks from the law.

But the White House found that provision unacceptable and had its own ideas about community lending. It wanted the legislation to prevent any bank with an unsatisfactory record of making loans to the disadvantaged from expanding into new areas, like insurance or securities.

The White House had insisted that the President would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements.

Agreement Reached on Overhaul of U.S. Financial System
​

In effect, the GLB Act INCREASED regulations on banks.

Beyond this, the GLB Act had nothing to do with the crash whatsoever.

The only even attempt to claim a connection, is allowing Insurance,Retail, Commercial, and investment banks to merge.

The problem is, the vast majority of the banks that failed... didn't do that. So they would not have been affected, had the GLB Act never existed.

AIG was only an insurance company. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Bear Stearns was an investment bank. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Country Wide was an investment bank. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Indymac was only Retail. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Lehman Brothers was only an investment bank. GLB Act did not affect them either way.

Without spending the next 6 pages listing each bank failure, the vast majority were all single business corporations, that would not have been affected by GLB Act at all. Nothing would have changed.

By the way, neither Europe nor Canada, has never had the restrictions on banks, that GLB Act removed.

This argument is getting as old as if Hitler was a lefty or Righty



Both the Republicans and Democrats were responsible

And Hitler was neither, just nuts

I don't care about political parties.

I'm talking about the ideology. The claim that there was "deregulation" and if only we had more regulation, then we would have solved this.... is proven false.

Regulation never solves anything. Before this crash, we had the most highly regulated banking system in the world.

More regulated than Europe, more than the UK, more than Canada, more than anywhere.

Yet the crash originated here in the US.

Now if you want to look at what policies started the housing bubble, then you need to go back to the Clinton Administration.

That's not partisanship. That's fact. If you want to argue the facts don't matter, and do this copout game of "Well... everyone is to blame!".... Then all you are doing is begging for another crash in the future. Not because democrats blaw blaw blaw blaw..... not because of that. But because when you do this "everyone is to blame" copout, you end up not finding the policies that caused the problem.

The problem started in 1997, when the Clinton Administration, pushed banks, and sued banks, and guaranteed sub-prime loans. This legitimized the market, and the result was a massive price bubble that eventually exploded in 2007. Fact. I can point citations and references for each of those claims. (all of which have been posted on this thread, possibly twice now).

I think I clearly said in my post that the Republicans were partially to blame because they had the opportunity to undo the damage the Democrats did but didn't do it.

I think your timeline is off a little bit. The problem started when the filthy ass CRA was signed into law. However, Clinton enhanced it as you indicated. The guarantees were in response to the pushback on the pressure of the CRA. Once Clinton agreed to provide a safety net for the loans then it was destine to create a failure.

I agree with you. The filthy ass government needs to stop regulating us so much. They always do the wrong thing because they don't do it for the good of the country but for the good of the special interest groups. In this case the special interest groups were the minorities that couldn't get credit. The economy was almost ruined because of that Welfare Queen mentality greed.

Liberals should stop trying to do good because it always turns out to be bad.

Yeah I don't think that is true at all.

Once a bubble starts, there is no other solution, but to have the bubble pop.

That's why they call them bubbles. Its just like any other kind of bubble you blow in real life. Whether the bubble is small, or medium, or large, it's still a bubble. It's filled with air. When it pops, it's gone.

There is no system that I know of, where you can somehow prevent an existing bubble, from bursting, and somehow reduce prices, without causing a crash.

If the Bush administration had come in, and shot the bubble apart, when no one believed there even was a bubble, and while people were proclaiming that they were successfullly increasing home ownership among minorities....

all of you on here right now, would all be saying today "There was no bubble! Bush just destroyed the economy for no reason!"

You know you would. Or they would. Or everyone would. We'd be hearing about how Fannie and Freddie were doing a great job, and low-income minorities across the country were living in homes... and then Bush came in an wrecked everything.

All of you know this is true. You know it.

So what reason would Bush have to even try and stop the bubble, even if he knew such a bubble existed? None. He's going to intentionally do something to cause a crash, knowing no one will give him any credit for avoiding a larger crash in the future?

And again... no one believed there was a bubble. Paul Krugman openly supported the push for home ownership. Barney Frank openly said "there is no bubble". That's all there is to it.

So while you say "they could have undone the damage" I don't think so. And no one, Bush or any other president, would have tried to.

 

[bripat9643]

SWEET IRONY. These Trump Voters FORCED to SELL Their Land to Build The WALL, "We Can't Believe It!"

So now these Trump voters are losing their land to build the wall they voted for...lol.
I guess they believed that Trump sees them differently from Black people, Asians, Hispanics, etc.

All of these idiots lost in court...I have no sympathy for them....

I'm confused about this. So his titled land... extends beyond the boarder? How is that possible? Can I buy land in the US, that extends beyond the US? Or did he buy land in Mexico? If he bought land in Mexico... then what is the problem again? The wall is to protect our boarder. He still has his land.... but the land in Mexico, is Mexican land, and the land in the US is US land. He didn't lose either.

Where is the problem again?

Now I get that he doesn't like the boarder fence... but too bad.

I will say I find it ironic that you, being a left-winger claims to have no sympathy for them. When did you people ever have sympathy for anyone you screw over? You take people's land over a mole-rat, spotted squirrels, and striped Minnow. The number of times you people screw over the public is uncountable, and for the dumbest possible reasons. The boarder protection, is actually a constitutional duty of the Federal Government.

You have no such justification for all the things you do.

Their land is situated in a bend of the Rio Grand river, which is the border with Mexico. Instead of following the river the fence went across the bend, so part of their land is on the Mexico side of the fence but still on U.S. soil.

 

[Flash]

The Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999.

First, the GLB Act of 1999, can't be used to explain a sub-prime bubble that started in 1997.

Second, the GLB Act did nothing..... let me repeat that and make it absolutely clear.... NOTHING..... that had any effect either way on the sub-prime lending, or the vast majority of institutions involved.

If the GLB Act had not been passed.... there is not one aspect of the sub-prime crash that would have changed. Not one. Not even one.

The only connection between GLB Act, and the sub-prime mortgage crash, is one that the left, generally denies.

The Act made all mergers between banks, be required to meet CRA standards before they could be approved.

So if a Bank wanted to do a merge, they had to meet lending standards to minorities and special interest groups.

Gramm had maintained that he did not want anything in the bill that would expand the application of the Community Reinvestment Act because it was, he said, unnecessarily burdensome to banks. He had sought a provision that would exempt thousands of smaller banks from the law.

But the White House found that provision unacceptable and had its own ideas about community lending. It wanted the legislation to prevent any bank with an unsatisfactory record of making loans to the disadvantaged from expanding into new areas, like insurance or securities.

The White House had insisted that the President would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements.

Agreement Reached on Overhaul of U.S. Financial System
​

In effect, the GLB Act INCREASED regulations on banks.

Beyond this, the GLB Act had nothing to do with the crash whatsoever.

The only even attempt to claim a connection, is allowing Insurance,Retail, Commercial, and investment banks to merge.

The problem is, the vast majority of the banks that failed... didn't do that. So they would not have been affected, had the GLB Act never existed.

AIG was only an insurance company. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Bear Stearns was an investment bank. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Country Wide was an investment bank. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Indymac was only Retail. GLB Act did not affect them either way.
Lehman Brothers was only an investment bank. GLB Act did not affect them either way.

Without spending the next 6 pages listing each bank failure, the vast majority were all single business corporations, that would not have been affected by GLB Act at all. Nothing would have changed.

By the way, neither Europe nor Canada, has never had the restrictions on banks, that GLB Act removed.

This argument is getting as old as if Hitler was a lefty or Righty



Both the Republicans and Democrats were responsible

And Hitler was neither, just nuts

I don't care about political parties.

I'm talking about the ideology. The claim that there was "deregulation" and if only we had more regulation, then we would have solved this.... is proven false.

Regulation never solves anything. Before this crash, we had the most highly regulated banking system in the world.

More regulated than Europe, more than the UK, more than Canada, more than anywhere.

Yet the crash originated here in the US.

Now if you want to look at what policies started the housing bubble, then you need to go back to the Clinton Administration.

That's not partisanship. That's fact. If you want to argue the facts don't matter, and do this copout game of "Well... everyone is to blame!".... Then all you are doing is begging for another crash in the future. Not because democrats blaw blaw blaw blaw..... not because of that. But because when you do this "everyone is to blame" copout, you end up not finding the policies that caused the problem.

The problem started in 1997, when the Clinton Administration, pushed banks, and sued banks, and guaranteed sub-prime loans. This legitimized the market, and the result was a massive price bubble that eventually exploded in 2007. Fact. I can point citations and references for each of those claims. (all of which have been posted on this thread, possibly twice now).

I think I clearly said in my post that the Republicans were partially to blame because they had the opportunity to undo the damage the Democrats did but didn't do it.

I think your timeline is off a little bit. The problem started when the filthy ass CRA was signed into law. However, Clinton enhanced it as you indicated. The guarantees were in response to the pushback on the pressure of the CRA. Once Clinton agreed to provide a safety net for the loans then it was destine to create a failure.

I agree with you. The filthy ass government needs to stop regulating us so much. They always do the wrong thing because they don't do it for the good of the country but for the good of the special interest groups. In this case the special interest groups were the minorities that couldn't get credit. The economy was almost ruined because of that Welfare Queen mentality greed.

Liberals should stop trying to do good because it always turns out to be bad.

Yeah I don't think that is true at all.

Once a bubble starts, there is no other solution, but to have the bubble pop.

That's why they call them bubbles. Its just like any other kind of bubble you blow in real life. Whether the bubble is small, or medium, or large, it's still a bubble. It's filled with air. When it pops, it's gone.

There is no system that I know of, where you can somehow prevent an existing bubble, from bursting, and somehow reduce prices, without causing a crash.

If the Bush administration had come in, and shot the bubble apart, when no one believed there even was a bubble, and while people were proclaiming that they were successfullly increasing home ownership among minorities....

all of you on here right now, would all be saying today "There was no bubble! Bush just destroyed the economy for no reason!"

You know you would. Or they would. Or everyone would. We'd be hearing about how Fannie and Freddie were doing a great job, and low-income minorities across the country were living in homes... and then Bush came in an wrecked everything.

All of you know this is true. You know it.

So what reason would Bush have to even try and stop the bubble, even if he knew such a bubble existed? None. He's going to intentionally do something to cause a crash, knowing no one will give him any credit for avoiding a larger crash in the future?

And again... no one believed there was a bubble. Paul Krugman openly supported the push for home ownership. Barney Frank openly said "there is no bubble". That's all there is to it.

So while you say "they could have undone the damage" I don't think so. And no one, Bush or any other president, would have tried to.

Bush warned everybody of the pending crisis. He just didn't fix it so that makes him partially responsible by omission. However, it was the Democrats fault by using the government to put pressure on the lenders to give credit to people that ordinarily wouldn't qualify and then the government promising to cover loses if there were any. Like I said, bad government.


.

 

[Andylusion]

SWEET IRONY. These Trump Voters FORCED to SELL Their Land to Build The WALL, "We Can't Believe It!"

So now these Trump voters are losing their land to build the wall they voted for...lol.
I guess they believed that Trump sees them differently from Black people, Asians, Hispanics, etc.

All of these idiots lost in court...I have no sympathy for them....

I'm confused about this. So his titled land... extends beyond the boarder? How is that possible? Can I buy land in the US, that extends beyond the US? Or did he buy land in Mexico? If he bought land in Mexico... then what is the problem again? The wall is to protect our boarder. He still has his land.... but the land in Mexico, is Mexican land, and the land in the US is US land. He didn't lose either.

Where is the problem again?

Now I get that he doesn't like the boarder fence... but too bad.

I will say I find it ironic that you, being a left-winger claims to have no sympathy for them. When did you people ever have sympathy for anyone you screw over? You take people's land over a mole-rat, spotted squirrels, and striped Minnow. The number of times you people screw over the public is uncountable, and for the dumbest possible reasons. The boarder protection, is actually a constitutional duty of the Federal Government.

You have no such justification for all the things you do.

Their land is situated in a bend of the Rio Grand river, which is the border with Mexico. Instead of following the river the fence went across the bend, so part of their land is on the Mexico side of the fence but still on U.S. soil.

OK! Now I get it. Now I understand.

Yes, in this case, they should be able to at the minimum get full valuation of every single square foot of land on the other side of the fence. They should get 100% compensation.

However, the eminent domain, for national security, does mean the Federal government has legal right to do that.

The only thing I don't know, and hope isn't the case, is that the reason the fense didn't follow the boarder. Could be a political reason, rather than an infrastructure reason. In which case, that really sucks. I hate it when policy is determined by politics rather than reality.

Regardless, they should get 100% compensation for lost land.

 

[JoeB131]

Mostly irrelevant nonsense.

Trump has accomplished quite a lot. There are plenty of reasons for us to be happy. I don't expect you to agree, but who the fuck cares about the opinions of a left wing nutter?

Tax Reform- Failed
ObamaCare Repeal - Failed
Immigration Bans - Failed
NAFTA Reform - Failed

I hear even the Russian Hackers are disappointed.

 

[JoeB131]

Bush warned everybody of the pending crisis. He just didn't fix it so that makes him partially responsible by omission. However, it was the Democrats fault by using the government to put pressure on the lenders to give credit to people that ordinarily wouldn't qualify and then the government promising to cover loses if there were any. Like I said, bad government.

Guy, the crisis wasn't because poor people can buy houses now.

The crisis was because all these dumb white trash Trump voters all bought McMansions that they thought they could flip in a couple of years because they saw someone do that on TLC.

Had nothing to do with the CRA, which had been in force for 30 years and did its job.

 

[PredFan]

Mostly irrelevant nonsense.

Trump has accomplished quite a lot. There are plenty of reasons for us to be happy. I don't expect you to agree, but who the fuck cares about the opinions of a left wing nutter?

Tax Reform- Failed
ObamaCare Repeal - Failed
Immigration Bans - Failed
NAFTA Reform - Failed

I hear even the Russian Hackers are disappointed.

Good luck with your literacy difficulties. Maybe take a remedial reading class or something.

 

[JBond]

Actually, these conservative posters have me in stitches...lol.
They get to make fun of Liberals/Democrats online while voting to lose their land, houses, SS, Medicare, pensions, etc...lol.

None of that has happened, though the liberal utopian state of California is half a trillion behind in funding its pension programs.

 

[JoeB131]

Good luck with your literacy difficulties. Maybe take a remedial reading class or something.

You are the one who can't provide any lists of anything positive Biff has accomplished.

But then again, you are the person who lives in mortal fear your workplace might unionize and they'll pay you a fair wage.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Trump demands British officials carry him personally to a Golden Shower Extravaganza


Followed by a golden shower.


[URL='https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.standard.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flondon%2Fmet-face-monster-security-operation-as-donald-trump-insists-on-golden-carriage-procession-during-a3515746.html&h=ATM88muYIr37nxpaMZb0dIhuwSV0ZhqkRJ0AhWwiTLvee5bN8DS9FBeBA0mmBzWDXWHQ-u07Gjnl-h3cieZpPieHXWJlXyt9XF9x-LhjM3ymVx_lZL8uWx5ijcG9OfittZyWoK2TTiqOoV0buKzD&enc=AZP_K6Kbfch3FdNC8kpz-WpwojB5vGRbhI3Y__eWhEVdY1GlzSH_T-cypgIlVIMHXA6mGjnx840bk9VYgZ0o2CTH85jUWDDpVPohvCLOc7R236Bz7QYa4Yf5LRuuM17vNvuGS9eIItGpIuO83_q-49vtU8l1T3ehY5VfD1IeBQ6Hi3qw09cdpJMtWX0tXvyvRFxed4dlgxhkWnXgbVtgMQxp&s=1']Trump insists on golden carriage procession during visit
Donald Trump has demanded he is transported in the Queen’s gold carriage on his state visit to the UK[/URL]

 

[PredFan]

Good luck with your literacy difficulties. Maybe take a remedial reading class or something.

You are the one who can't provide any lists of anything positive Biff has accomplished.

But then again, you are the person who lives in mortal fear your workplace might unionize and they'll pay you a fair wage.

Of course I can, but that has nothing to do with the dumbass response from you.

He got us out of horrible trade deals.
He got the pipeline restarted.
He is building the wall.
He has deported illegal aliens.
He has reduced the illegal entry of Mexicans across our border.
He appointed Gorsuch.
He bettered our standing in the world.
He killed 90+ ISIS members.
He made deals with the Chinese.
He bitch-slapped North Korea's little dictator.
He has revitalized the coal industry.
He blasted Syria and at the same time sent a message to the Middle East.
He has appointed an excellent cabinet and staff.
His appointee to HUD found and corrected a half a billion dollar mistake left over from the 0bama regime.

And on and on. Likely, since you seem to be somewhat illiterate, you won't understand what I've posted. So how about that remedial reading classes I suggested to you? Just trying to help.

 

[PredFan]

I forgot to add:

He signed a bill allowing states to defund Planned Parenthood.

The man has had a very busy and successful term so far abd it hasn't even been 100 days.

 

[postman]

I forgot to add:

He signed a bill allowing states to defund Planned Parenthood.

The man has had a very busy and successful term so far abd it hasn't even been 100 days.

Yet the fifty plus promises, everything from mexico paying for the wall, to repeal and replace obamacare to unsigning all the Obama executive orders, to tax reform has gone wanting. But Trump is way ahead on vacations.

 

[PredFan]

I forgot to add:

He signed a bill allowing states to defund Planned Parenthood.

The man has had a very busy and successful term so far abd it hasn't even been 100 days.

Yet the fifty plus promises, everything from mexico paying for the wall, to repeal and replace obamacare to unsigning all the Obama executive orders, to tax reform has gone wanting. But Trump is way ahead on vacations.

Typical vacuous response from the left. You and a hundred other idiots have said that very same thing. It's not 2020 you empty headed dolt. He has time to fill those promises and he will.

How fucking stupid are you really?

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Regressive liberal gas bag tactics.


1. Demand a link or an explanation of the truth they are objecting to.

2. Promptly reject all explanations as right wing lies.

3. Ignore any facts presented.

4. Ridicule spelling and typos, punctuation.

5. Attack the person as being juvenile, ie: "are you 12 years old", question their education, intelligence.

6. Employ misdirection,

6a. smear people

6b. attack religion

7. Lie, make false assumptions

8. Play race/gender card

9. Play gay/lesbian card

10. Play the Nazi/Fascist card

11. Make up stuff

12. Deny constantly

13. Reword and repeat

14. Pretending not to understand when they have been posting about it for days.

15. When losing, resort to personal attacks.

Your No. 5 is the overwhelming modus operandi for the righties on this board. Nobody knows that better than a liberal who posts here.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Mostly irrelevant nonsense.

Trump has accomplished quite a lot. There are plenty of reasons for us to be happy. I don't expect you to agree, but who the fuck cares about the opinions of a left wing nutter?

Tax Reform- Failed
ObamaCare Repeal - Failed
Immigration Bans - Failed
NAFTA Reform - Failed

I hear even the Russian Hackers are disappointed.

Good luck with your literacy difficulties. Maybe take a remedial reading class or something.

Looks like you have the reading problem. Every item JoeB posted is a fact as of today, April 16.
Oh, let me add something to the list:
Diplomacy - Failed