The Right is truly, truly terrified of Hillary Clinton

[Soggy in NOLA]

Terrified? Hardly.. frankly, I just think its enough already with that two... not to mention, her involvement in the Benghazi debacle shows she's unfit for office.

The Clintons just need to go away.

 

[bedowin62]

This is your first and only warning to remain civil.

The terms of this point were defined by Stephanie. Since you cannot refute the facts, your deflections have failed and you have resorted to name calling you are tacitly conceding this point. Have a nice day.

You are warning a guy for that? If you are a moderator it's unfair to the board to start flexing your muscles if things don't go your way. Moderators should remain neutral.

Most boards I've been on list the moderators on the forum, it would be nice if they did that here.

Moderators are blue and admins are red in this forum. I warn people before I neg them for failing to remain civil.

who cares? you're a snitch. you want to tell like a child when you're losing the debate on the merits; or in your case lack of merit

 

[Edgetho]

Doubt she will run.

i am in the boat.

I think she runs. I think the Clintons are power-mad.

I also think she gets derailed a'la 2008.

People, that election was nip and tuck until the Markets collapsed in Mid Sept, 2008 through Mid Oct.

Had that collapse waited another 6-1/2 weeks, we might be talking about a president McRINO right now.

And Hitlery? Like I said, that election was closer than most people think until the Markets collapsed and the general feeling was that McRINO and Sarah would have kicked her ass. Or her face... Hard to tell the difference.

Hitlery runs, but a relative unknown beats her in the dimocrap primary

dimocrap scum can't run a KNOWN candidate for an open presidential seat. They can't do it and win.

If I know it, they know it.

They'll let her run and surreptitiously back her dimocrap opponent.

I think she knows it, too. But like I said, they're both (Hitlery and The Rapist) power-mad

 

[Wildman]

Not claiming to be a moderator at all. I always warn people before I neg them for gratuitously insulting me. Gives them the opportunity to remain civil and avoid being negged.

you are a fucking hypocritical, self righteous, uppity liberscum.

neg me all the fuck you want, it means nothing to me.





U

 

[Edgetho]

Are you now alleging that deregulation was a Dem idea?

Yes, I was there. I watched it happen in slow motion. I was part of the Financial Services Industry. I listened back and forth to the debates about whether Insurance Companies could buy Banks and Banks could sell Insurance and the 'too big to fail' scenario.

Yes, it was a democrat idea....

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And note that the CRA was knee-deep in that fucking bill. Which is what dimocraps wanted and what REALLY caused the Financial Meltdown.

That and the fact that dimocraps, especially you, are terminally stupid.

Too bad you ignored the origins of the deregulation initiative that preceded your quote.

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier.[4][5] In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report that explored the cases for and against preserving the Glass–Steagall act.[6]

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[7]

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343–86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[8][9][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[11][12][13][note 2]

100% Republican initiative.

Don't breed, you're too stupid

William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act


Statement of William J Clinton President XLII

Statement on Signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
November 12, 1999

Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry. America's consumers, our communities, and the economy will reap the benefits of this Act.

Beginning with the introduction of an Administration-sponsored bill in 1997, my Administration has worked vigorously to produce financial services legislation that would not only spur greater competition, but also protect the rights of consumers and guarantee that expanded financial services firms would meet the needs of America's underserved communities. Passage of this legislation by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Congress suggests that we have met that goal.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act makes the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s. Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new economy. The Act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since the Great Depression, have restricted affiliations between banks and securities firms. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act to remove restrictions on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. It grants banks significant new authority to conduct most newly authorized activities through financial subsidiaries.

Removal of barriers to competition will enhance the stability of our financial services system. Financial services firms will be able to diversify their product offerings and thus their sources of revenue. They will also be better equipped to compete in global financial markets.

Although the Act grants financial services firms greater latitude to innovate, it also contains important safety and soundness protections. While the Act allows common ownership of banking, securities, and insurance firms, it still requires those activities to be conducted separately within an organization, subject to functional regulation and funding limitations.

Both the Vice President and I have insisted that any financial services modernization legislation must benefit American communities by preserving and strengthening community reinvestment. I am very pleased that the Act accomplishes this goal. The Act establishes an important prospective principle: banking organizations seeking to conduct new nonbanking activities must first demonstrate a satisfactory record of meeting the credit needs of all the communities they serve, including low- and moderate-income communities. Thus, the law will for the first time prohibit expansion into activities such as securities and insurance underwriting unless all of the organization's banks and thrifts maintain a "satisfactory" or better rating under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA will continue to apply to all banks and thrifts, and any application to acquire or merge with a bank or thrift will continue to be reviewed under CRA, with full opportunity for public comment. The bill offers further support for community development in the form of a new Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs (PRIME), to provide technical help to low- and moderate income microentrepreneurs.

The Act includes a limited extension of the CRA examination cycle for small banks and thrifts with outstanding or satisfactory CRA records, but expressly preserves the ability of regulators to examine these institutions at any time for reasonable cause, and does not affect regulators' authority in connection with an application. The bill also includes a requirement for disclosure and reporting of CRA agreements. The Act and its legislative history have been crafted to alleviate burdens on banks and thrifts and those working to stimulate investment in underserved communities. It is critical that depository institutions and their community partners continue efforts that have led to the highest home ownership rate in our history, including a particularly dramatic increase in recent years in minority and low-income home ownership. My Administration remains committed to ensuring that implementation of these provisions does not in any way diminish community reinvestment, and stands ready to remedy any problems that may arise.

Last May, I proposed strong and enforceable Federal privacy protections for consumers' financial information. I am very pleased that the Act provides a number of the new protections that I proposed.

Under the Act, financial institutions must clearly disclose their privacy policies to customers up front and annually, allowing consumers to make truly informed choices about privacy protection. For the first time, consumers will have an absolute right to know if their financial institution intends to share or sell their personal financial data, either within the corporate family or with an unaffiliated third-party. Consumers will have the right to "opt out" of such information sharing with unaffiliated third parties. These protections constitute a significant change from existing law, under which information on everything from account balances to credit card transactions can be shared or sold by a financial institutions without a customer's knowledge or consent, including the sale of information to telemarketers and other nonfinancial firms.

Of equal importance, these restrictions have teeth. For the first time, the Act allows privacy protection to be included in regular bank examinations. The Act grants regulators full authority to issue privacy rules and to use the full range of their enforcement powers in case of violations. The Act grants new, and needed, rulemaking authority under the existing Fair Credit Reporting Act. In addition, it establishes new penalties to prevent pretext calling, by which unscrupulous persons use deceptive practices to determine the financial assets of consumers. The Act will specifically allow the States to provide stronger privacy protections if they choose to do so.

Although these are significant steps forward, we will continue to press for even greater privacy protections—especially choice about whether personal financial information can be shared within a corporate family. Privacy is fundamental to Americans, and to my Administration.

The Act also streamlines supervision of bank holding companies and preserves financial regulation along functional lines. Activities generally will be overseen by those regulators who are most knowledgeable about a given financial activity, including the Securities and Exchange Commission for securities activities and State regulators for insurance activities. Given the broad new affiliations permissible under this legislation, I fully expect our regulators to work together to protect the integrity of our financial system. The bill also promotes the safety and soundness of our financial system by enhancing the traditional separation of banking and commerce. The bill limits the ability of thrift institutions to affiliate with commercial companies.

There are provisions of the Act that concern me. The Act's redomestication provisions could allow mutual insurance companies to avoid State law protecting policyholders, enriching insiders at the expense of consumers. We intend to monitor any redomestications and State law changes closely, returning to the Congress if necessary. The Act's Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) provisions fail to focus the FHLB System more on lending to community banks and less on arbitrage activities and short-term lending that do not advance its public purpose.

The Act raises certain constitutional issues with respect to the insurance privacy provisions in title V. The Act might be construed as contrary to Supreme Court decisions that hold that the Congress may not compel States to enact or administer a Federal regulatory program. I interpret section 505(c) of the Act, however, as providing States with a constitutionally permissible choice of whether to participate in such a program. States that choose to participate will gain the powers listed in section 505(c); States that decline will not. I believe that the Congress, in giving States a choice (in section 505(c)) whether to "adopt regulations to carry out this subtitle," intended to allow States to accept or decline all of the rulemaking and enforcement obligations assigned to State authorities under sections 501-505 of the Act. This interpretation is consistent with the explanation in the conference report that both the rulemaking and enforcement roles of State insurance authorities are voluntary not mandatory.

Section 332(b) of S. 900 provides for Presidential appointment of the board of directors of the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers (NARAB), established by the bill in the event that certain stated conditions occur. Because members of the NARAB board would exercise significant Federal governmental authority under those conditions, they must be appointed as Officers pursuant to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Under section 332(b)(1) of the bill, the President would be required to make such appointments from lists of candidates recommended by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The Appointments Clause, however, does not permit such restrictions to be imposed upon the President's power of appointment. I therefore do not interpret the restrictions of section 332(b)(1) as binding and will regard any such lists of recommended candidates as advisory only.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is a major achievement that will benefit American consumers, communities, and businesses of all sizes. I thank all of those individuals who played a role in the development and passage of this historic legislation.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

The White House, November 12, 1999.

Edge: You're not just stupid, you're a lying fuck

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, I was there. I watched it happen in slow motion. I was part of the Financial Services Industry. I listened back and forth to the debates about whether Insurance Companies could buy Banks and Banks could sell Insurance and the 'too big to fail' scenario.

Yes, it was a democrat idea....

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And note that the CRA was knee-deep in that fucking bill. Which is what dimocraps wanted and what REALLY caused the Financial Meltdown.

That and the fact that dimocraps, especially you, are terminally stupid.

Too bad you ignored the origins of the deregulation initiative that preceded your quote.

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier.[4][5] In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report that explored the cases for and against preserving the Glass–Steagall act.[6]

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[7]

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343–86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[8][9][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[11][12][13][note 2]

100% Republican initiative.

you're comical; NOTHING was a 100% Republican initiative.. it was the Left's idea their INITIATIVE to give loans to people that couldnt repay them. loans that were backed by the government. trillions of dollars worth

The issue is the repeal of Glass-Steagal which was part of the Republican Deregulation initiative. The facts don't change because you don't understand them. It was 3 GOP members who introduced the legislation and that is why it is their names that are on the repeal bill...Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act!

 

[Edgetho]

Too bad you ignored the origins of the deregulation initiative that preceded your quote.



100% Republican initiative.

you're comical; NOTHING was a 100% Republican initiative.. it was the Left's idea their INITIATIVE to give loans to people that couldnt repay them. loans that were backed by the government. trillions of dollars worth

The issue is the repeal of Glass-Steagal which was part of the Republican Deregulation initiative. The facts don't change because you don't understand them. It was 3 GOP members who introduced the legislation and that is why it is their names that are on the repeal bill...Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act!

Gee, I just a posted a PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT claiming responsibility for introducing the bill.

Are you calling your master, The Rapist, a liar?

So which is it? Was The Rapist lying or are you lying?

Enquiring minds.......

Stop drinking the

And I won't make you look the fool. Which, of course, you are.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWOJZccJVk4


Ok....



Glenn Beck: Hillary Clinton Will Have Sex With A Woman On White House Desk To Get Elected | Crooks and Liars

"I'm telling you," Beck said, "Hillary Clinton will be having sex with a woman on the White House desk if it becomes popular"

Glenn Beck: Hillary Clinton Would Have Sex With a Woman on the White House Desk for Popularity - NationalJournal.com

One of Beck's guests pointed out that Clinton "came out" in favor of gay marriage last year—phrasing that Beck seized upon with aplomb.

"Hillary came out last year?" he asked incredulously. "Because I didn't think that had been officially ...," he trailed off.

Beck continued with a quip about Clinton's hypothetical sexual relations in the Oval Office.

"I'm telling you, Hillary Clinton will be having sex with a woman on the White House desk if it becomes popular," he said, to his colleagues' chuckles. "She will be! She'll be like, 'Look, the arc of history wasn't ready for a president to be a lesbian and have sex on the desk.' "

Beck: Hillary 'Will Be Having Sex With A Woman On The White House Desk If It Becomes Popular'

While trashing political "cowards" who have backed gay marriage as it has become more popular with the public, conservative icon Glenn Beck appeared to reveal a pet theory that Hillary Clinton might be a lesbian.

"What I heard you just say is that Hillary came out last year?" Beck said after one of his co-hosts noted that Clinton voiced her support for same-sex marriage. "Because I didn't think that had officially…"

"I'm telling you, Hillary Clinton will be having sex with a woman on the White House desk if it becomes popular," he continued. "She'll be like, 'Look, the arc of history wasn't ready for a President to be a lesbian.'"

Glenn Beck: Hillary Clinton 'Will Be Having Sex With A Woman' In The White House If It Becomes Popular

It isn't the first time that Clinton has faced conservative claims about her sexuality. In September 2013, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer pointed to a then-recent interview with Bill Clinton's alleged ex-mistress, Gennifer Flowers.

In that interview with the Daily Mail's Laura Collins, Flowers had speculated about the nature of Hillary Clinton's relationship with aide Huma Abedin (also the wife of failed New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner), and implied she was bisexual.

"The bottom line is that if Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2016, she will not only be our first female president, she could be our first lesbian president,” Fischer noted at the time.

Terrified of Hillary: Glenn Beck Thinks Clinton Will Claim to be a Lesbian to Win






-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yepp, they are really terrified of her and already in 2014, are getting pretty desperate



Of course, when you consider all the straight dudes out there who love to watch lesbian porn, these crazy accusations could end up being a problem for the GOP on down the road....

They don't have anyone who could win against her.

And Anything For A Buck Beck is struggling to be relevant. Maybe he should team up with $illy $arah. He had a huge little boy crush on her and their fans would love it. Seriously. It would be fun to watch them flail around.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, I was there. I watched it happen in slow motion. I was part of the Financial Services Industry. I listened back and forth to the debates about whether Insurance Companies could buy Banks and Banks could sell Insurance and the 'too big to fail' scenario.

Yes, it was a democrat idea....

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And note that the CRA was knee-deep in that fucking bill. Which is what dimocraps wanted and what REALLY caused the Financial Meltdown.

That and the fact that dimocraps, especially you, are terminally stupid.

Too bad you ignored the origins of the deregulation initiative that preceded your quote.

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier.[4][5] In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report that explored the cases for and against preserving the Glass–Steagall act.[6]

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[7]

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343–86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[8][9][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[11][12][13][note 2]

100% Republican initiative.

Don't breed, you're too stupid

William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act


Statement of William J Clinton President XLII

Statement on Signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
November 12, 1999

Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry. America's consumers, our communities, and the economy will reap the benefits of this Act.

Beginning with the introduction of an Administration-sponsored bill in 1997, my Administration has worked vigorously to produce financial services legislation that would not only spur greater competition, but also protect the rights of consumers and guarantee that expanded financial services firms would meet the needs of America's underserved communities. Passage of this legislation by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Congress suggests that we have met that goal.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act makes the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s. Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new economy. The Act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since the Great Depression, have restricted affiliations between banks and securities firms. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act to remove restrictions on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. It grants banks significant new authority to conduct most newly authorized activities through financial subsidiaries.

Removal of barriers to competition will enhance the stability of our financial services system. Financial services firms will be able to diversify their product offerings and thus their sources of revenue. They will also be better equipped to compete in global financial markets.

Although the Act grants financial services firms greater latitude to innovate, it also contains important safety and soundness protections. While the Act allows common ownership of banking, securities, and insurance firms, it still requires those activities to be conducted separately within an organization, subject to functional regulation and funding limitations.

Both the Vice President and I have insisted that any financial services modernization legislation must benefit American communities by preserving and strengthening community reinvestment. I am very pleased that the Act accomplishes this goal. The Act establishes an important prospective principle: banking organizations seeking to conduct new nonbanking activities must first demonstrate a satisfactory record of meeting the credit needs of all the communities they serve, including low- and moderate-income communities. Thus, the law will for the first time prohibit expansion into activities such as securities and insurance underwriting unless all of the organization's banks and thrifts maintain a "satisfactory" or better rating under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA will continue to apply to all banks and thrifts, and any application to acquire or merge with a bank or thrift will continue to be reviewed under CRA, with full opportunity for public comment. The bill offers further support for community development in the form of a new Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs (PRIME), to provide technical help to low- and moderate income microentrepreneurs.

The Act includes a limited extension of the CRA examination cycle for small banks and thrifts with outstanding or satisfactory CRA records, but expressly preserves the ability of regulators to examine these institutions at any time for reasonable cause, and does not affect regulators' authority in connection with an application. The bill also includes a requirement for disclosure and reporting of CRA agreements. The Act and its legislative history have been crafted to alleviate burdens on banks and thrifts and those working to stimulate investment in underserved communities. It is critical that depository institutions and their community partners continue efforts that have led to the highest home ownership rate in our history, including a particularly dramatic increase in recent years in minority and low-income home ownership. My Administration remains committed to ensuring that implementation of these provisions does not in any way diminish community reinvestment, and stands ready to remedy any problems that may arise.

Last May, I proposed strong and enforceable Federal privacy protections for consumers' financial information. I am very pleased that the Act provides a number of the new protections that I proposed.

Under the Act, financial institutions must clearly disclose their privacy policies to customers up front and annually, allowing consumers to make truly informed choices about privacy protection. For the first time, consumers will have an absolute right to know if their financial institution intends to share or sell their personal financial data, either within the corporate family or with an unaffiliated third-party. Consumers will have the right to "opt out" of such information sharing with unaffiliated third parties. These protections constitute a significant change from existing law, under which information on everything from account balances to credit card transactions can be shared or sold by a financial institutions without a customer's knowledge or consent, including the sale of information to telemarketers and other nonfinancial firms.

Of equal importance, these restrictions have teeth. For the first time, the Act allows privacy protection to be included in regular bank examinations. The Act grants regulators full authority to issue privacy rules and to use the full range of their enforcement powers in case of violations. The Act grants new, and needed, rulemaking authority under the existing Fair Credit Reporting Act. In addition, it establishes new penalties to prevent pretext calling, by which unscrupulous persons use deceptive practices to determine the financial assets of consumers. The Act will specifically allow the States to provide stronger privacy protections if they choose to do so.

Although these are significant steps forward, we will continue to press for even greater privacy protections—especially choice about whether personal financial information can be shared within a corporate family. Privacy is fundamental to Americans, and to my Administration.

The Act also streamlines supervision of bank holding companies and preserves financial regulation along functional lines. Activities generally will be overseen by those regulators who are most knowledgeable about a given financial activity, including the Securities and Exchange Commission for securities activities and State regulators for insurance activities. Given the broad new affiliations permissible under this legislation, I fully expect our regulators to work together to protect the integrity of our financial system. The bill also promotes the safety and soundness of our financial system by enhancing the traditional separation of banking and commerce. The bill limits the ability of thrift institutions to affiliate with commercial companies.

There are provisions of the Act that concern me. The Act's redomestication provisions could allow mutual insurance companies to avoid State law protecting policyholders, enriching insiders at the expense of consumers. We intend to monitor any redomestications and State law changes closely, returning to the Congress if necessary. The Act's Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) provisions fail to focus the FHLB System more on lending to community banks and less on arbitrage activities and short-term lending that do not advance its public purpose.

The Act raises certain constitutional issues with respect to the insurance privacy provisions in title V. The Act might be construed as contrary to Supreme Court decisions that hold that the Congress may not compel States to enact or administer a Federal regulatory program. I interpret section 505(c) of the Act, however, as providing States with a constitutionally permissible choice of whether to participate in such a program. States that choose to participate will gain the powers listed in section 505(c); States that decline will not. I believe that the Congress, in giving States a choice (in section 505(c)) whether to "adopt regulations to carry out this subtitle," intended to allow States to accept or decline all of the rulemaking and enforcement obligations assigned to State authorities under sections 501-505 of the Act. This interpretation is consistent with the explanation in the conference report that both the rulemaking and enforcement roles of State insurance authorities are voluntary not mandatory.

Section 332(b) of S. 900 provides for Presidential appointment of the board of directors of the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers (NARAB), established by the bill in the event that certain stated conditions occur. Because members of the NARAB board would exercise significant Federal governmental authority under those conditions, they must be appointed as Officers pursuant to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Under section 332(b)(1) of the bill, the President would be required to make such appointments from lists of candidates recommended by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The Appointments Clause, however, does not permit such restrictions to be imposed upon the President's power of appointment. I therefore do not interpret the restrictions of section 332(b)(1) as binding and will regard any such lists of recommended candidates as advisory only.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is a major achievement that will benefit American consumers, communities, and businesses of all sizes. I thank all of those individuals who played a role in the development and passage of this historic legislation.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

The White House, November 12, 1999.

Edge: You're not just stupid, you're a lying fuck

Too bad Clinton subsequently admitted that it was a major mistake to have signed that bill.

Clinton: I Was Wrong to Listen to Wrong Advice Against Regulating Derivatives* - ABC News

By Evan Harris
Apr 17, 2010 7:20pm
In my EXCLUSIVE “This Week” interview, I asked former President Bill Clinton if he thought he got bad advice on regulating complex financial instruments known as derivatives from his former Treasury Secretaries, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. He acknowledged that he was wrong to take the advice of those advising him against regulating derivatives.
(Note: please see update at the bottom of this post.)

“On derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take [their advice] because the argument on derivatives was that these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection, and any extra transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them transparency,” Clinton told me.

“And the flaw in that argument,” Clinton added, “was that first of all sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”
The former President also said he was also wrong about understanding the consequences if the derivatives market tanked. “The most important flaw was even if less than 1 percent of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges, so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect a 100 percent of the investments, and indeed a 100 percent of the citizens in countries, not investors, and I was wrong about that.”

Clinton also blamed the Bush administration for scaling back on policing the financial industry. “I think what happened was the SEC and the whole regulatory apparatus after I left office was just let go.”

Much of the financial carnage of the past several years, Clinton said, could have been prevented if only his appointed regulator had been kept on after he left office.. “I think if Arthur Levitt had been on the job at the SEC, my last SEC commissioner, an enormous percentage of what we’ve been through in the last eight or nine years would not have happened.”

Clinton said he regretted not trying to regulate derivatives, but that Republicans would have stood in the way. “Now, I think if I had tried to regulate them because the Republicans were the majority in the Congress, they would have stopped it. But I wish I should have been caught trying. I mean, that was a mistake I made.”

 

[Iceweasel]

William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Thanks, I bookmarked that site.

 

[Stephanie]

Terrified? Hardly.. frankly, I just think its enough already with that two... not to mention, her involvement in the Benghazi debacle shows she's unfit for office.

The Clintons just need to go away.

both the Clintons and the Bush clan needs to go away

no more of them for President at least for awhile like YEARS down the road

Jeb Bush we might as well elected a progressive, he's no different

 

[Statistikhengst]

Think of all those RW dudes who love their lesbie-porn.

Boy, oh boy, are they gonna be conflicted in 2016.

good one doofus; now can you get out of people's bedrooms?

lol

libs are such idiotic fools and hypocrites

tsk, tsk. When one gets all personal about someone else instead of attacking the point, then he already lost the debate.

The content of the OP is not, I repeat, not about me.

Go read it again. Thanks!

 

[Edgetho]

Terrified? Hardly.. frankly, I just think its enough already with that two... not to mention, her involvement in the Benghazi debacle shows she's unfit for office.

The Clintons just need to go away.

both the Clintons and the Bush clan needs to go away

no more of them for President at least for awhile like YEARS down the road

Jeb Bush we might as well elected a progressive, he's no different

He was a pretty good governor here in Florida. But I agree, I don't want him as the Republican nominee

Look, ladies and gents......

Most Republicans are tired of the 'nice guy' image we've been presenting to the Public for the last 150 years.

While dimocrap scum incite class and race warfare, while they use the power of the Federal Government against us to further their political ambitions, while they routinely break the law and refuse to enforce laws they don't agree with, while they lie and cover up....

We run nice guys against them who just want to 'forgive and forget' and hold hands while we all sing kumbaya and come together in a bi-partisan love fest?

What a load of shit.

While we let dimocrap criminals off the hook, they're plotting how to use the IRS, the 2nd most powerful arm of the US Government, against us for partisan purposes.

I don't want a guy like Jeb bush in the White House. He's not as bad as a dimocrap but, neither would Satan be.... As bad as a dimocrap.

We need to get someone in Office who will go after these criminals, who stand up to the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM and tell them what they are, knob-slurping, cum-guzzling dimocrap sycophants that need to get the fuck out of the News Business if they can't be fair. And then ban them, selectively, from the White House Press Room and Air Force One.

Will we ever see a Republican with the balls to do what needs to be done?

I don't know. I kind of doubt it, actually.

But we can hope because, people....... That's our only chance.

Criminals belong in prison and most of the dimocrap party is nothing but criminals.

Don't need another limp-wristed do nothing nice guy that wants to 'Bring Us Together'

We need one that will kick some ass and take some names

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hillary will get the female, moderate, minority and Democrat vote, what's left for the far right? Hmmmm, let me think.

Hillary: 94% of the Democratic vote.
Hillary: 20% of the GOP vote (female voters)

From that:

Hillary: 90% of the black vote.
Hillary: 85% of the Jewish vote.
Hillary: 80% of the Latino vote.
Hillary: 80% of the Asian vote.
Hillary: 90% of the American Indian vote.
Hillary: 90% of the gay vote.
Hillary: 75% of the straight dudes who get off on lesbie-porn vids vote, thanks to Glenn Beck!!

That makes for:

Hillary: 57%
any of the GOPers: 41%
other/scatter: 2%





Looking forward to 2016!!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Make a thread with "Hillary Clinton" in the title and it's sure to get lots and lots of traffic!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

Think of all those RW dudes who love their lesbie-porn.

Boy, oh boy, are they gonna be conflicted in 2016.

good one doofus; now can you get out of people's bedrooms?

lol

libs are such idiotic fools and hypocrites

tsk, tsk. When one gets all personal about someone else instead of attacking the point, then he already lost the debate.

The content of the OP is not, I repeat, not about me.

Go read it again. Thanks!

Ironic post. You deflect and then blame others for the same thing.
The GOP welcomes a run by Hillary. It is the Dems that are scared of her. Because they know she is old news and cannot win. Watch the Obamoids sabotage her campaign to get their own guy in there.

 

[Edgetho]

Make a thread with "Hillary Clinton" in the title and it's sure to get lots and lots of traffic!!!

Why not?

Our dimocrap females identify with her

And here's another liberal icon for you

 

[ClosedCaption]

You can tell how not scared of her they are by how much they keep her name in their mouths lol

 

[Edgetho]

I heard screaming, here's some eye-bleach for you

 

[Zander]

Hillary is a lock!! Just like in 2008!!