Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Oh, let's just unbury this little gem ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"... alot (sic) of AIG employes (sic) gave money to Barry's campain (sic) ..."

Were they the Londoners who were in the AIG Financial Products Corp (AIGFP) and who are the ones getting the bonuses ? Weird how those Britishers would give to a US campaign, eh ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

---

Quote:

---

Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
rue, stop the childish stalking through each and ever gorram thread.

I'm content w/ kicking your ass once, over the same issue. There's no need for me to do it multiple times, is there ?

The U.S. economy WAS on fire under Bush, for 6 years. Until the Democrats took control of Congress. It's been all down hill since then.

---

Quote:

---

Geithner - not being part of the Fed but of Treasury - was not in the loop. Further, deals may have been cut during Bush's term - where 1.5 to 7 TRILLION dollars went off to industry off the books - and about which there is no information.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
And you ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Buck stops at Obama, just like Bush."

So Bush gets the blame for 9/11 - right ? For the stock market closing lower when he left than when he came in - right ? For 1.5 TRILLION in government debt - right ? For letting bin Laden get away - right ? For attacking Iraq when there was no WMD threat - right ?

EVERYTHING that went wrong under Bush's watch is his fault - right ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Nahh... because everybody knows that BDN, Crapo, sock-puppet and Geezer insist on ONE set of rules for the Repugs and a different set for the Dems.

Get it???

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Nahh... because everybody knows that BDN, Crapo, sock-puppet and Geezer insist on ONE set of rules for the Repugs and a different set for the Dems.

Get it???

---

Ah. Here's SignyM masterdebating by putting words in others mouths and then being offended by them.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And so Geezers mask of logic and reason finally begins to tear at the edges too...

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Buck stops at Obama, just like Bush."

So Bush gets the blame for 9/11 - right ? For the stock market closing lower when he left than when he came in - right ? For 1.5 TRILLION in government debt - right ? For letting bin Laden get away - right ? For attacking Iraq when there was no WMD threat - right ?

EVERYTHING that went wrong under Bush's watch is his fault - right ?

***************************************************************

C'mon ! Now's the time to show us all how non-partisan you are !


I'll be waiting ...

---

Quote:

---

Rue, if you're honest with yourself I think you know what he was trying to say. That Bush got blamed for an awful lot of stuff. Some of it was not warranted at all. Didn't matter to anyone, though. He was the President and that was final. The first recession when he took office, HIS FAULT even though it was on the downturn before he took office. Be honest. Was that fair that he was blamed for it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Rue, if you're honest with yourself I think you know what he was trying to say. That Bush got blamed for an awful lot of stuff. Some of it was not warranted at all. Didn't matter to anyone, though. He was the President and that was final. The first recession when he took office, HIS FAULT even though it was on the downturn before he took office. Be honest. Was that fair that he was blamed for it?

---

Rip, if you're honest with yourself you'll see that's not what RAPO says. What RAPO says is that the recession early on in Bush's term was Clintons' fault, that Bush gets the credit for the "on-fire" economy, that Dems take the blame for not reining in Fannie and Friddie (altho they weren't in power) and that Obama was responsible for the drop in the economy that took place at the end of Bush's term.

---

I was taking issue more with how Rue was responding, I guess. We can ALL be reasonable if we keep our heads. (Isn't there a Jayne quote about that somehwere? )

I was just re-iterating (perhaps more rationaly that Rap) that to blame the initial economic downturn in the first part of Bush's first term on Bush is unfair because there were indicators that it was on it's way there LONG before he took office. That's all I'm saying. The minute I heard that on the news I thought to myself, "Oh great. And if a Repubican wins the election (2000), I'll bet HE gets blamed for it." And he was. He curbed it a little bit, but the troubles kept happening, though for the most part, the economy stayed stable (in my humble opinion). The dip after the first couple years I attribute to 9/11 and everyone being to scared to do anything. Unemployment was WAY down during a lot of Bush's adminstration . . . which he got zero credit for. Stock market prices soared to record highs at times . . . for which he got zilch recognition. The negative was focused on. That's all I'm saying. Sure the economy started to crumble during his administration. But like I said - Is it COMPLETELY his fault? Probably not. Lots of blame to go around that can be proven on both sides, I'm sure.

Quote:

---

You're reasonable. He's not.

---

If that's a compliment . . . I'll take it Gotta take what I can get around here. LOL

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

Quote:

---

I was just re-iterating (perhaps more rationaly that Rap) that to blame the initial economic downturn in the first part of Bush's first term on Bush is unfair because there were indicators that it was on it's way there LONG before he took office.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

I was just re-iterating (perhaps more rationaly that Rap) that to blame the initial economic downturn in the first part of Bush's first term on Bush is unfair because there were indicators that it was on it's way there LONG before he took office.

---

Oh, I absoluitley agree. "The economy" is like a 100-car train... it takes a long time to get it going and a long time to stop it. Which is why the current downturn is the result of Bush's policies.

Now, if you could explain that to Rapo in a way he'll understand we'd ALL breathe a sigh of relief!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

---

Quote:

---

I'll go so far as to say this. The President is not the SOLE indicator/owner (whatever - can't think of the right word) of the economy in any period of time . . . up or down. It was not entirely Clinton's fault. Not entirely Bush's fault. But the BLAME or the PRAISE for the economy is given to the President. I don't know if I'm expressing myself clearly or not. There are just WAY too many factors that determine where any economy is going to go. And even those are turned on their ear by the slightest little hiccup in anyone's plans. There are way too many hands in the Economy Pot for the blame to be placed on just one person. That's all I'm saying.

---

Quote:

---

I dare say that I have found it humorous that every time Obama has made a speech about the economy, the stock market takes a plunge. My thought is . . . stop talking and start doing

---

Quote:

---

Since he can't seem to wring the words out, I take it he's sunk very deeply into the exact same partisan double standard he criticized. You know - blame one, but excuse the other.

---

Quote:

---

Rue, if you're honest with yourself I think you know what he was trying to say. That Bush got blamed for an awful lot of stuff. Some of it was not warranted at all. Didn't matter to anyone, though. He was the President and that was final.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
I was gonna weigh in on the AIG issue, but then found this column, which expresses my point of view pretty well.

http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/03/management_by_headline.php

I would aslo note I think legislation to punatively tax bonuses that the government doesn't like is a bad precedent.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

I was just re-iterating (perhaps more rationaly that Rap) that to blame the initial economic downturn in the first part of Bush's first term on Bush is unfair because there were indicators that it was on it's way there LONG before he took office. That's all I'm saying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Rue, if you're honest with yourself I think you know what he was trying to say. That Bush got blamed for an awful lot of stuff. Some of it was not warranted at all. Didn't matter to anyone, though. He was the President and that was final.

---

Rip, you seem reasonable enough. Will you do me a HUGE favor, as one of the board's resident conservatives? Will you write a letter to Jimmy Carter explaining just what you've said here, and let him know that conservatives don't really hold him up as the "worst president in history", no matter how many times they may do so?

Just sayin'. I know none of the other so-called "conservatives" around here will ever admit such a thing, but I figured you just might.

Thanks!



Mike

A baby seal walks into a club...



The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

---

Quote:

---

GEEZER:
I would aslo note I think legislation to punatively tax bonuses that the government doesn't like is a bad precedent.

---

Quote:

---

KWICKO:
I'll make a deal with ya, then:

Give back the $300 billion in bailout money that AIG has already pissed away, and I'll let you keep the $160 million in bonuses. Sound fair enough?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Edit: At least Obama's detractors have come up with more 'meaty' topics than the countless "Bush said something stupid" threads we all had to endure.

---