Story Comments
Posted by: dwemm 10 months, 2 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
79%
dwemm10 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
100%
fsev4110 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What you are saying Endo is that if you want to be a Republican you must give up your own ideals and the right to make choices that may not agree with other Republicans. That may be why the term bushbot came into existence, a robot controlled by a "leader. With Bush gone it appears that bushbot may have to be replaced by limbaughbots or, less of a mouthful, rushbots.
Reply -
-
-
29%
Klarissa10 months, 2 weeks ago
-
85%
DenCuddy10 months, 2 weeks ago
-
17%
slate10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What was the reason for this crisis, what got it started?
Reply
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/rep-kanj...
If the Dems have known this since September of last year, why is this the first time we've heard about it? And from a congreeman and not our president and his staff?-
100%
ADAGUY10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If the Dems have known this since September of last year, why is this the first time we've heard about it? And from a congreeman and not our president and his staff?"
Reply
Fact is, we were not told about it as it would have created a run on the banks.
But let's look at both sides of the coin!
WHY DID WE NOT HEAR ABOUT THIS FROM BUSH?????? HE WAS IN OFFICE FOR ANOTHER 4 MONTHS AFTER THIS HAPPENED!
This is why I say you are a republickin', rather than a conservative. Party first! That's the way so many of you think.-
100%
Beeboppin7110 months, 2 weeks ago
-
17%
slate10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As opposed to everything they do still being the fault of the last 8 years Bee? Funny how politics works huh?
Reply
BTW the Republicans do own what they did and they did enough to lose to a Junior Senator so they paid the price, as will the Dems being owners of what they do while in office, the excuse that the actions they take in try to solve this 'crisis' will be their problem if it goes badly and it's time they take personal responsibility now since they need absolutely no Republican votes to pass any bill they decide to pass. Their Bills are their not Bush's.
Dems have:
Eight years of Bush to continue to blame if all fails.
If it goes well they can claim they overcame 8 years of the Evil Bush empire.
Looking good both ways, they can do what they will and have to only claim the good and blame the bad on Bush and any dissent from the right will be treated kinda like what you did in this post. When else fails blame Bush for the next couple of hundred years. What a deal huh?
In the end, there was not one comment from either of you about the 'shocking' thing this Democrat made, just the usual Rhetoric about Bush and calling me a name that sounded like a twelve year old so proudly came up with by a 'spposed' educated adult.
Now with that said. Didn't you find that a run on banks last September a bit scary and wouldn't you like to know the details about how it happened and by whom?
Try and make it about the Video and not about your personal dislike of me the messenger for a change huh?-
100%
Beeboppin7110 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
“As will the Dems being owners of what they do while in office…”
Reply
Oh no doubt Slate, they should own their actions. I will be the first in line with criticism if it doesn’t work (and I’m not sure it will). However, many on the right seem to get amnesia when it comes to their parties’ past mistakes. That is really what my reference was about. You can’t deny the fact that there is a witch hunt for anything that Obama tries to do. Perhaps that is because the Republicans lost to a Junior Senator and they’re a little bitter about it. Maybe it’s because the free ride for corporations is about to end. Who really knows, but the bitterness is obvious.
“Dems have: Eight years of Bush to continue to blame if all fails.If it goes well they can claim they overcame 8 years of the Evil Bush empire.”
Where did I say that Bush should be blamed for the failed policies of Democrats? It was a decent attempt at spin though. Sadly, you’ve missed the mark. Allow me to refresh your memory:
Slate: “If the Dems have known this since September of last year, why is this the first time we've heard about it?”
Adaguy: “Fact is, we were not told about it as it would have created a run on the banks. But let's look at both sides of the coin! WHY DID WE NOT HEAR ABOUT THIS FROM BUSH?????? HE WAS IN OFFICE FOR ANOTHER 4 MONTHS AFTER THIS HAPPENED!”
Fact is Slate, you are trying to blame the Democrats for failed Republican policies. Why weren’t we informed of this by the Bush Administration? He was the President at the time. It was his job to inform the public of this. Why is it always the Democrats responsibility to inform the public of these problems? Why didn’t the Republicans take the initiative?
I imagine that it was to everyone’s benefit to keep a situation as serious as this under wraps so that it didn’t cause world wide panic. There are some things the general public doesn’t need to know. That is one of them. That is of course, if any of the information is factual. The website and sources cited are questionable at best.
“just the usual Rhetoric about Bush and calling me a name that sounded like a twelve year old so proudly came up with by a ['spposed'] educated adult.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about here. I read my post a few times and can’t seem to find any name calling there. Perhaps you meant to address this comment to Adaguy, and perhaps you should in the future. I do not need to call names.
“Didn't you find that a run on banks last September a bit scary and wouldn't you like to know the details about how it happened and by whom?”
Yes the details would be nice. Do you happen to have those from a non-biased, credible source? I am really sick of hearing Rush Limbaugh’s hysterical, uneducated, polarizing opinion of this Nation’s affairs. In addition, I am afraid to open the links from this website due to the fact that they admit they have been infected. “UPDATE: I deleted the infected link.”-
20%
slate10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fact is Slate, you are trying to blame the Democrats for failed Republican policies.
Reply
A run on the banks isn't Bush policy.
I've never said Republicans shouldn't own their mistakes, in fact, I'vve stated so here in this thread. But the Dems to have to own up to their own failings. Every time I suggested that Clinton's failure to get OBL I get grilled for daring to do so. All I hear is that it's Republicans fault because they were investigating Clinton.
In essence both parties pick and chose what they want to recall and ignore things that don't help their cause
Infected? I never got any such notice. In fact I've opened this many times and my usual daily scans came up with nothing. If indeed it is infected at this time, it makes me wonder why this is true now that the info has been brought forth.-
100%
Beeboppin7110 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why didn't we hear about the Run on the banks from the main man in charge of the country in September of 2008? That man, in case you forgot, was President George W. Bush. Not Barrack Hussein Obama or any other Democrat. Answer the question Slate. Why was it the Democrats responsibility to inform the public of a run on the banks?
Reply
As to infected links on the web page you provided, here is a direct quote from the author of that page:
"UPDATE: I deleted the infected link.
More-- I used "Malwarebytes Anti Malware." It is highly rated and available at CNET for free. Go to CNET, click on downloads and click on Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.34.
Thank you, Pierre.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 2/14/2009 11:33:00 AM Comments (46) | Trackbacks (3)"
I am not opening links on a web page where the author (whoever that is) admits that those links have been infected. In addition, I never trust an article where the author of said article is unknown.-
50%
slate10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well that's ok. I braved the site once again and copied the text for you.
Reply
Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania explains what former Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke told congress during the September 2008 closed door session. During the first third of the video an enraged caller is ranting to Rep. Kanjorski about how wasteful the first $700 billion bailout was. The best part is 2 minutes and 15 seconds into the tape where Rep. Kanjorski reveals what Paulson and Bernanke told congress that shocked them into supporting the first $700 billion bailout.
On Thursday Sept 15, 2008 at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.
The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts.
Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.-
100%
Beeboppin7110 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, how nice. Thank you for re posting an article that I've already read. Now address the original question:
Reply
Why didn't we hear about the Run on the banks from the main man in charge of the country in September of 2008? That man, in case you forgot, was President George W. Bush. Not Barrack Hussein Obama or any other Democrat. Answer the question Slate. Why was it the Democrats responsibility to inform the public of a run on the banks?-
0%
slate10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How nice, you reposed a question I've already answered and I answered that I hold both administrations accountable for not telling us.
Reply
Now let's talk about the bank run, don't you find it interesting that all this money was taken on one day and only in a few hrs and they aren't saying it was US citizens that 'ran' the bank. In fact they didn't say who did this, but if you actually take the time to think about it, the possibility that everyone just woke up that day and decided to make a run on the banks all at once is slim.
Bush didn't tell us but we know him to be on the secretive side but Obama promised us more transparency I would hope he would have told us about this important event , regardless that it happened on his watch or not. It would have explained to us one of the reasons for the collapse if nothing more.
Now that I've put blame on Bush will you talk about your thoughts on this day and the money removed from the economy in a few short hours?-
100%
cushi10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Bush didn't tell us but we know him to be on the secretive side but Obama promised us more transparency I would hope he would have told us about this important event , regardless that it happened on his watch or not."
Reply
MAJOR COPOUT, SLATE!!
-
-
-
100%
wtagg10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Much isn't provided in their statement. Who was doing the drawing down. It obviously wasn't individuals. Were they all US investors? It points to collusion between money market managers to get to that alleged volume.
Reply
Their estimate is based on conjecture of the rate of withdraw continuing at the same pace.
I think there is more to the story. Also, I'd probably would want some insight into why Paulson's and Bernanke's possible position, culpability, etc... in this. I think much disinformation is out there to protect the behinds of many people.
-
-
-
100%
sinophil4910 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Slate - You've raised that old shibboleth about Clinton's failure to "get OBL."
Reply
I've posted this before, but I'll do here again.
On 8/7/98, right after the bombings of US embassies in Nairobi and dar-es-Salaam, Clinton issued a series of then classified executive orders which:
1) expanded the intelligence scope of seraching for OBL
2) authorised the killing of OBL and any al Qaeda lieutenants
3) approved the shooting down of private civilian aircraft if al Qaeda members were in it
On 8/20/98, Clinton ordered a missile strike against al Qaeda training camps which missed OBL. After that, there were 3 more times when Clinton came close to ordering another missile launch; but each time, the CIA could not confirm the presence of OBL.
The CIA also recruited and trained or paid for tribal militias inside Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. There were a number of skirmishes, but no great damage to the al Qaeda.
The CIA even went to the extent of locating a deserted airstrip to extract OBL if captured.
Cinton also formed the Counterterrorism Security Group w/ Richard Clarke as chair. On 12/4/98, the CSG gave Clinton a report that specifically stated al Qaeda was planning to hijack US aircraft.
All these info were passed on to Bush - who promptly buried all of it. Condi Rice later testified to the 9-11 Commission that all the evidence was "preliminary," "circumstantial," or that "it was not clear." After a few months, Bush made the decision to not respond militarily anymore to the embassy or the USS Cole bombings. Insteade, he opted to formulate a more comprehensive, regional approach to the terrorism threat.
However, between 1/20/01 to 9/11/01, there were only 2 cabinet level meetings where terrorism was even discussed, but there was NO discussion on domestic terrorism.
On 8/6/01, the CSG sent a follow-up report to Bush titled "Bin Laden Determined to strike US." Bush later testified to the 9-11 Commission that he does not recall reading the report at all nor discussing it w/ Rice, Tenet, Rumsfeld, or the AG.
Tenet met w/ Bush on 8/13/01, 8/31/01, and 9/10/01. He testified that he did not recall talking to Bush at all about domestic terrorism or airplane hijacking - EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE 2 REPORTS FROM THE CSG SPECIFICALLY WARNING OF THOSE POSSIBILITIES.
The CIA even had reports of 2 hijackers landing in San Diego for flight training. Due to inter-agency rivalry, that report was never passed on to the FBI.
On 9/12/01, there was a credible report that OBL was in a Pakistan hospital for dialysis treatment. The local CIA chief even boasted of having met him. However, OBL was being guarded by Pakistani military, so Bush did not order his assassination.
So there you have a short summary of the hut for OBL from Clinton to Bush.
Please do not keep spouting about Clinton not hunting for OBL. Bush actually had the best opportunity, but did not order the assassination.-
100%
sinophil4910 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, and I forgot. Bush did have OBL on the run and hiding for his life with the Afghanistan invasion. Inexplicably, Bush deviated from the prime objective of capturing OBL.
Reply
He then invaded Iraq and diverted 90% of our war forces there.
WHY? WHY? WHY? OH, WHY?
-
-
-
25%
slate10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You still can't comment on whether you think the run on the banks is a bit frightening after all this discussion to avoid the topic?
Reply
Yes I was talking about ADA and not you, but the point was basically to both of you in general. It's good to see someone that doesn't need to resort in the name calling and I commend you for that.
As far as the source, it was a video from C-SPAN, I guess you'll have to make up your own mind whether you think that's a 'crdible' source or not.-
100%
Beeboppin7110 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Re read my comment. I did address this issue. Oh forget it. I'll just copy and paste it here:
Reply
I said:
"Yes the details would be nice. Do you happen to have those from a non-biased, credible source? I am really sick of hearing Rush Limbaugh’s hysterical, uneducated, polarizing opinion of this Nation’s affairs."
So, do you have more details from other sources or not? -
-
-
-
100%
cushi10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That the Bush administration has run this country into ruin financially, internationally with respect to foreign relations, and in many other respects is not accusation, it is fact, Slate. WELL DOCUMENTED FACT. There IS a difference!
Reply
-
-
100%
sinophil4910 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bee - Obama has been president all of 27 days. How can he be blamed for anything of the past 8 years. Where did Bush, Cheney, Rove figure in all this? In your distorted view of how government functions and who is at the helm?
Reply
Bush was captain of the ship. His hand was on the tiller. He was the self-proclaimed decider. He was the one that God meant to be president (his own words). He was the Commander in Chief.
Yet he has no blame at all in the morass our country is in???-
100%
Beeboppin7110 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Seems like it. Why don't you ask people like Slate, perhaps they can answer that question much better. It seems as if they're the ones that are still making excuses for the previous Administration. As far as I'm concerned, it's all Bush & Co. fault.
Reply
-
-
-
20%
slate10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ahhhhhh yes that's true Bush didn't tell us this, and I hold him responsible as well. Maybe for the same reason you used to deflect from the Party of your choice, you know the 'transparent one'.
Reply
I guess that makes you a silly name spun from the orginal one as well ADA? Hehe Repulickin? You guys aren't even smart enough to come up with your silly names without it being tasteless and wonder why your views hold no credence with me other the than entertainment value, which too is minimal at best.
The facts are, it was a Democrat on that tape, so we know they do know and have had time to tell us have they not? Why not Obama instead of a congressman?-
100%
Beeboppin7110 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Slate: "The facts are, it was a Democrat on that tape, so we know they do know and have had time to tell us have they not? Why not Obama instead of a congressman?"
Reply
The fact is that at the time the country was being run by a Republican President. It was his responsibility to inform the public. He did not. Why?
Another fact is that a Democrat DID inform the public. All you are doing by continuing this argument is illustrating how irresponsible the Republican Party is. It was their responsibility to inform the public but they chose not to. A Democrat picked up the dropped ball and ran with it.
If the Republican President wasn't aware of this situation, why not? Isn't it his job to be aware of a crises a large as that? What was he doing that he didn't know? Again you've proven that the Republican President was irresponsible. This run on the banks happened during his watch. It's his responsibility to inform the public! Stop trying to shirk it for him. He does that well enough on his own. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
44%
BBcamaro10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
dwemm,
Reply
If you mean your idea of personal integrity is to vote on a bill that you have not had a chance to ready and make and educated decision on is integrity, then yes I guess the three RINO's have that.
I however call anyone and everyone of them willing to vote yes for something that will saddle my kids and grandkids with the bill with out even looking at it a t not only stupid but a moron. -
-
loading ...
Ciera-Marie
cushi
tchef
alakazam
doppich
fsev41
juvel
Beeboppin71
DenCuddy
bluetexasvalley
FrauBlucher
BBcamaro
jimdoze
lovemylibs
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.