If FedGovt can regulate bank exec pay, what in banking can't they regulate?

Although I like the sound of it, it's just not right...

What article of the Constitution gives the government the right to do this?

BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT........ We did bail those corporate pigs out, so now we own them...

I know you guys must be smarter than this??????:confused:

I mean I know the whole Lunatic Right agenda is to try and bash our new President for trying something (anything) different to try and pull us out of the Bush ditch (Bush Ressesion)...

but you seriously think there would be something unconstitution about this... SERIOUSLY?

Maybe I can break it down in little tiny words for the Lunatic Fringe... ITS A BAILOUT LOAN >>> NO ONE HAS TO ACCEPT IT >>> CORPORATIONS DON'T HAVE TO CAP ANY SALARIES AS LONG AS THEY DON"T BEG FOR A TAXPAYER HANDOUT!!!

You guys kill me! The President stands up and does something to stop taxpayer money going to million dollar office renovations, multi-million dollar bonuses for failing companies' execs, and pretty new corporate jets... AND YOU'RE COMPLAINING!:eek:

Man it's sooo easy to see how you guys keep getting your butts kicked in these elections! You're totally clueless!:D


 
Werbung:
Man it's sooo easy to see how you guys keep getting your butts kicked in these elections! You're totally clueless!:D

That is so funny

AlGore and Herman Munster lost the last two presidential elections

clinton won ONLY because of that nut case Ross Perot

before that you lost 3 elections in a row and before that you won with a total jack ass a one termer and that was only because of watergate

you are so darn cute

but I am starting to believe that you do really have a crush on the egg head :)
 
That is so funny

AlGore and Herman Munster lost the last two presidential elections

clinton won ONLY because of that nut case Ross Perot

before that you lost 3 elections in a row and before that you won with a total jack ass a one termer and that was only because of watergate

you are so darn cute

but I am starting to believe that you do really have a crush on the egg head

Exactly!!!

First you have Carter, who won the election over Ford by a whooping 100K votes nation wide. Of course the biggest thing against Ford, was that he pardoned Nixon. Interestingly, the only reason Carter was running is because no one thought he could win. The democrats thought Ford would still be so popular, as to be undefeatable. So they let Carter, who had a 2% name recognition nation wide, run for office. Even when Carter himself, told his family that he would run for president, his own mother asked "President of what?"

First he reintroduces price caps, that instantly send the nation into an energy crisis. He then denies support to an ally in Iran, which leads to them being over thrown. Doesn't protect our people in the US embassy. Botches a hasty poorly planned rescue attempt which results in millions of dollars worth in US military hardware being used by anti-US Iranians. Then loses to Reagan so badly, that only six states in the entire union vote for him, with an electoral count of 49 to 489.
jimmy_carter.jpg

Interestingly, this was posted to a democrat website. Maybe a clandestine conservative over there.

Then 1984 election, Reagan runs against some guy no one can even remember. Ol what's his name, a hold over from Carters screwed up years, loses so badly that most of the left refuse to even admit he was a candidate. His most brilliant move was saying "Let's tell the truth. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did." The result was about as predictable as Carters loss before him. One thing can be said, Walter Mondale at least won his home state of Minnesota. Of course that was the only state he won, with a 20 point loss in popular vote.
350px-ElectoralCollege1984.svg.png


1988 showed was a loser Michael Dukakis was. After getting tired of being accused of not knowing much about the military, which was accurate, he staged the infamous M1 tank ad, where he looked like a cartoon reject. Meanwhile Bush Sr promised in his campaign "Read my lips: No new taxes!". Dukakis somehow managed to carry 10 states for 111 electoral votes, but still lost.
2211301058_7b0ef77289.jpg


After the end of the first Gulf War, Bush Sr ratings were so high that no one thought he could be defeated. So the democrats let some no name from Arkansas run for president. Sound familiar? Like Carter before him, Clinton only got onto the ticket because none of the democrats thought the Republican in office could be defeated. And they were right.

No one could defeat Bush Sr, but Bush himself. After pledging years before to never raise taxes, he signed a large tax increase. That combined with the predictable economic decline and recession that follows an increase in taxes, Bush opened the door for the third party candidate Ross Perot.

The split in the conservative vote, over shadowed the multiple flip-flops of Clinton. First being against family values, then for them. Against tax cuts, then for them. Against NAFTA, then for it. Clinton was the first president in five elections to win with less than 50% of the vote. Ironically, or fittingly, the last one to do that was Nixon.

Of course Clinton's legacy of being the first impeached president, is fitting to how the rest of the world views him.
clinton.jpeg

Parade in Germany.
 
How is it that you are more concerned about the fairness of attaching strings to loaned money than you are about the trampling of the constitution?

It was wrong to loan the money.
It was wrong to take it from you and I before it was loaned.
But it is just fine with me if there are strings attached when it is loaned.

Again , cant debate a issue can you, straw men are all you have...I was against the bail out....also show me where it is against the constitution for the Government to be involved in the finances of the US.
 
That is so funny

AlGore and Herman Munster lost the last two presidential elections

clinton won ONLY because of that nut case Ross Perot

before that you lost 3 elections in a row and before that you won with a total jack ass a one termer and that was only because of watergate

you are so darn cute

but I am starting to believe that you do really have a crush on the egg head :)

really he won because of a 3rd person running? so you mean to say that well more then half of the US voted against him then right? I mean that was due to Bush's poor economic poliicy that the majority of the US did not agree with...sounds alot like now.. ( and I liked Bush i)
 
really he won because of a 3rd person running? so you mean to say that well more then half of the US voted against him then right? I mean that was due to Bush's poor economic poliicy that the majority of the US did not agree with...sounds alot like now.. ( and I liked Bush i)

Clinton NEVER got 50 percent of the vote in EITHER of his elections. Bush's votes were sucked off by Perot the first time and then Perot sucked them again the second time.

Had clinton got even 50 percent of the votes I would not have said what I did.
 
Exactly!!!

First you have Carter, who won the election over Ford by a whooping 100K votes nation wide. Of course the biggest thing against Ford, was that he pardoned Nixon. Interestingly, the only reason Carter was running is because no one thought he could win. The democrats thought Ford would still be so popular, as to be undefeatable. So they let Carter, who had a 2% name recognition nation wide, run for office. Even when Carter himself, told his family that he would run for president, his own mother asked "President of what?"

First he reintroduces price caps, that instantly send the nation into an energy crisis. He then denies support to an ally in Iran, which leads to them being over thrown. Doesn't protect our people in the US embassy. Botches a hasty poorly planned rescue attempt which results in millions of dollars worth in US military hardware being used by anti-US Iranians. Then loses to Reagan so badly, that only six states in the entire union vote for him, with an electoral count of 49 to 489.
jimmy_carter.jpg

Interestingly, this was posted to a democrat website. Maybe a clandestine conservative over there.

Then 1984 election, Reagan runs against some guy no one can even remember. Ol what's his name, a hold over from Carters screwed up years, loses so badly that most of the left refuse to even admit he was a candidate. His most brilliant move was saying "Let's tell the truth. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did." The result was about as predictable as Carters loss before him. One thing can be said, Walter Mondale at least won his home state of Minnesota. Of course that was the only state he won, with a 20 point loss in popular vote.
350px-ElectoralCollege1984.svg.png


1988 showed was a loser Michael Dukakis was. After getting tired of being accused of not knowing much about the military, which was accurate, he staged the infamous M1 tank ad, where he looked like a cartoon reject. Meanwhile Bush Sr promised in his campaign "Read my lips: No new taxes!". Dukakis somehow managed to carry 10 states for 111 electoral votes, but still lost.
2211301058_7b0ef77289.jpg


After the end of the first Gulf War, Bush Sr ratings were so high that no one thought he could be defeated. So the democrats let some no name from Arkansas run for president. Sound familiar? Like Carter before him, Clinton only got onto the ticket because none of the democrats thought the Republican in office could be defeated. And they were right.

No one could defeat Bush Sr, but Bush himself. After pledging years before to never raise taxes, he signed a large tax increase. That combined with the predictable economic decline and recession that follows an increase in taxes, Bush opened the door for the third party candidate Ross Perot.

The split in the conservative vote, over shadowed the multiple flip-flops of Clinton. First being against family values, then for them. Against tax cuts, then for them. Against NAFTA, then for it. Clinton was the first president in five elections to win with less than 50% of the vote. Ironically, or fittingly, the last one to do that was Nixon.

Of course Clinton's legacy of being the first impeached president, is fitting to how the rest of the world views him.
clinton.jpeg

Parade in Germany.

Andy that is such a great post.
thanks
 
Now up to 1996, Bob Dole steps up, and what non-conservative he was. Not only trying to show off a long list of big government projects he proudly supported, but then bragging about his joint ventures with democrats. Finely commenting on his support of his wife's pro gun-control views. All of this added up to breaking his core conservative support.

Meanwhile Clinton was collecting cash from China, in exchange for influence on national policy. Nevertheless, the massive scandal wasn't enough to boost the democrat-ish Bob Dole over Clinton, who yet again failed to even get 50% of the popular vote.
Chinagate.jpg


In comes Albert Gore. Now here's a real winner. After the amazing, wonderful, couldn't be better, perfect (impeached) president Clinton... we have Gore. He invented the internet, was wowed by Micheal Jackson of the Chicago Bulls, didn't know who was in the pictures of the founding fathers, he visited Texas during a wild fire, he manufactured a new verse in the Bible, claimed Mary, Joseph and Jesus were homeless, was the first to discover the Washington Post printed the Earth upside down, managed and grew, then sold tobacco, yet is against cigarette companies because of the death of his sister, but still accepted their donations to his campaign, was the inspiration for Love Story, is against the internal combustion engine, yet had millions in oil company stock, and is a big Courtney Love fan that can't name a single song of hers. And that doesn't even include the numerous scandals he was involved in.

Despite the endless string of stupidity that is Gore, he still managed to get 266 electoral votes, and still lose.
rainforestman.jpg


Finely we have John Kerry. A brilliant man who married a wealthy widow, to inherent the Heinz family fortune. This after his serving in Vietnam as a reporter that never saw action of any kind, yet became a massive anti-war activist. Quickly after taking a seat in the US Senate, he went straight to communist, and soviet collaborator, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. The Castro wannabe Ortega, offered a cease-fire in exchange for dropping US support of the Contras. Kerry accepted the offer, and went back to block aid to the contras, which was successful. Of course the cease-fire never happened, but it did lead to the Iran-Contra scandal, which was a non-event.

Nevertheless Kerry, who served in Vietnam, had a hard line position supporting military force in Iraq, until that started to cost him votes. This supportive oppositions to the Iraq war, led to the infamous "I voted for the war, before I voted against it." line. Even so, Kerry still managed to get 19 states before losing.
kerry_munster_separated.jpg


Last, McCain and Obama. Ironically Obama too was never supposed to win. Like Clinton and Carter before him, Obama was never even supposed to make it past the primaries where the crowning of Queen Hillary was the assumed winner before the race even started. Even months after she dropped out, democrats all over claimed Obama never stood a chance, which would have been true if only a conservative, or even a republican had been in the race.

McCain, who isn't conservative on more than one or two issues, can only boost of democrat policies he helped pass. Almost all of which have been failures. From amnesty, to campaign finance reform, McCain has been a democrat for years. Without much of an issue anywhere to gain the support of the republican base, Obama was given the very opportunity he required to have a chance to win.
obama_supporters.jpg


So basically, in a retrospective look at democrats in elections, they either lose very badly, or win by not really having an alternative or by some lucky break.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top