Jump to content

I Miss This Guy!


Parsad
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Definitely one of the smarter Presidents in our time.  I remember he gave an address at a Federalism Conference in 1999 when Lucien Bouchard had the separatist agenda rolling along at full steam and it just took the wind right out of their sails.  He looked right at Bouchard and basically said there has been untold bloodshed and strife around the world for a century where people are trying to achieve a peace, prosperity and civility approaching what you already have here in Canada under your Federalist model, and for some reason you are trying to dismantle it.  It was beautiful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to a talk of Clinton's science advisor (who was a professor at my university).  Here was his anecdote regarding Clinton:

 

He gave a summary of some science issue while there were a lot of people around and Clinton looked distracted/seemed like he wasn't listening.  He started to say it again for emphasis, and Clinton stopped him and said "do not ever repeat things to me" or something along those lines. 

 

Apparently, just impressively smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't miss him.  As Buffett it is not only how intelligent you are, it is also how hard you work and the level of your ethics.  Clinton does not pass the ethics criteria in my book.

 

I second that.  On the other hand, W had ethics but made many poor decisions.  I believe O's ethics are on par with Clinton's, but unlike Clinton, his only talent is drumming up the masses.  He is not a policy guy, just a community organizer writ large.  Between the three, I'll go with Clinton.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't miss him.  As Buffett it is not only how intelligent you are, it is also how hard you work and the level of your ethics.  Clinton does not pass the ethics criteria in my book.

 

I second that.  On the other hand, W had ethics but made many poor decisions.  I believe O's ethics are on par with Clinton's, but unlike Clinton, his only talent is drumming up the masses.  He is not a policy guy, just a community organizer writ large.  Between the three, I'll go with Clinton.

 

W nearly took down the entire financial system...he can stick his ethics where the sun don't shine.  The U.S. also was the most hated country in the world for the better part of his tenure, and there was probably more crony capitalism under his watch then the previous 100 years combined. 

 

You can dislike Obama all you want for his policies, but the U.S.' global stature is back where it was under Clinton or Reagan.  And the biggest problem for the last 40 years has been U.S. dependence on foreign oil...whether anyone likes it or not, and you can debate all you want around the exact reasons (economic, innovation), that dependence is decreasing under Obama's watch.  W couldn't even do it after invading Iraq and taking over the oil infrastructure there.  You guys were all still driving 9 mpg Hummers then!

 

I've heard five speeches now from the conventions...Ryan, Romney, Romney's wife, Michelle Obama and Clinton.  Only one, Clinton, had a speech that talked about respect for members of the other party and trying to work with them.  I hope Obama takes that turn, because that's what he needs to do.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W nearly took down the entire financial system...he can stick his ethics where the sun don't shine.  The U.S. also was the most hated country in the world for the better part of his tenure, and there was probably more crony capitalism under his watch then the previous 100 years combined.

 

In fairness, there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis, including democrats and the private sector. Regarding crony capitalism - which is a huge problem - I wish it was diminished under President Obama. Unfortunately, I think it continues unabated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard five speeches now from the conventions...Ryan, Romney, Romney's wife, Michelle Obama and Clinton. 

 

You're missing out on the Eastwood speech then!

 

Oh that was brutal!  That's why I didn't include it...it wasn't even a speech.  It was a cranky old guy doing vaudeville!  ;D 

 

If you've ever seen Bill Hader doing Clint Eastwood on SNL, that was exactly it.  I used to think Hader was just doing an exaggerated caricature of Eastwood...I was wrong, no exaggeration.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W nearly took down the entire financial system...he can stick his ethics where the sun don't shine.  The U.S. also was the most hated country in the world for the better part of his tenure, and there was probably more crony capitalism under his watch then the previous 100 years combined.

 

In fairness, there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis, including democrats and the private sector. Regarding crony capitalism - which is a huge problem - I wish it was diminished under President Obama. Unfortunately, I think it continues unabated.

 

Yes, of course, but it happened on his watch.  Isn't that what the Republicans are pounding on regarding Obama...that he hasn't been able to fix the economy on his watch?  Well, if all of the recovery hinges on Obama, then all of the Great Recession really falls on the shoulders of Dubya based on that logic. 

 

I'm being facetious.  Of course, not all the blame is Dubya's, but I don't think you can expect full recovery in four years from Obama or anyone else after what we went through.  Cheers! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't miss him.  As Buffett it is not only how intelligent you are, it is also how hard you work and the level of your ethics.  Clinton does not pass the ethics criteria in my book.

 

I second that.  On the other hand, W had ethics but made many poor decisions.  I believe O's ethics are on par with Clinton's, but unlike Clinton, his only talent is drumming up the masses.  He is not a policy guy, just a community organizer writ large.  Between the three, I'll go with Clinton.

 

W nearly took down the entire financial system...he can stick his ethics where the sun don't shine.  The U.S. also was the most hated country in the world for the better part of his tenure, and there was probably more crony capitalism under his watch then the previous 100 years combined. 

 

You can dislike Obama all you want for his policies, but the U.S.' global stature is back where it was under Clinton or Reagan.  And the biggest problem for the last 40 years has been U.S. dependence on foreign oil...whether anyone likes it or not, and you can debate all you want around the exact reasons (economic, innovation), that dependence is decreasing under Obama's watch.  W couldn't even do it after invading Iraq and taking over the oil infrastructure there.  You guys were all still driving 9 mpg Hummers then!

 

I've heard five speeches now from the conventions...Ryan, Romney, Romney's wife, Michelle Obama and Clinton.  Only one, Clinton, had a speech that talked about respect for members of the other party and trying to work with them.  I hope Obama takes that turn, because that's what he needs to do.  Cheers!

 

I obviously disagree strongly with your political views.  I also disagree with your understanding of the facts.  W did not nearly take down the financial system.  Did the system get near the brink of collapse?  In many ways, Yes.  Was it W's fault?  If so, how?  What did he specifically do, or not do, that nearly took down the financial system?  Tax cuts?  Obama supported renewing all of them and still supports renewing 80+% of them.  Medicare Part D?  I have not heard anyone call for its repeal?  Two expensive wars?  While unwise, and budget busters, they didn't cause the recession.  Budget deficits did not cause the recession.  Crony capitalism?  Your statement that it was worse under him than the last 100 years combined shows you do not have even a basic grasp of US history.  How is this W's fault any more than Congresses?  In fact Congress is the one that writes the laws.  (Which is what I find ironic about Harry Reid criticizing what Romney paid in taxes.  It is not Romney's fault, he followed the law, it is more Reid's fault).  Even the phrase "crony capitalism" is interesting in that it ignores crony governmentism (public sector unions, grants, etc).  It is a congressional problem and ultimately a voter problem since we continue to let it happen.

 

Fannie and Freddie?  The blame there is more (but not exclusively) on the Democrats in Congress who resisted changes.  How is a President to prevent a housing bubble?  Greed blinded the buyers, originators, and lenders.  Was the crisis due to lack of oversight on banks?  Not solely, but it certainly contributed.  Did W repeal Glass Steagall?  Nope, that was Clinton and the Republican Congress. 

 

Democrats are running around saying that the crisis was caused by failed policies of the past?  And therefore we need a new course.  Of course they don't mention many specific policies.  Interesting.  Well those basic policies (lower taxes and smaller government) were started under Reagan and continued through Clinton.  They worked fine for quite a while, and can in the future.       

 

US global stature is not the best barometer.  Wars will lower your support.  That Europe likes Democrats who share their views is not surprising. 

 

As for oil production increasing.  Come on.  Do you actually think Obama is that focused on it?  What specific policies did he push for in order to increase production?  How is he helping unlock reserves in the Bakken?  How is he helping offshore drilling?  It was the private sector that did it in spite of the obstacles.  By the way, Iraqi oil is Iraqi oil.  Iraqi production does not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

 

Lastly, what did Obama do that saved us from the crisis?  He stabilized the financial system.  That was done through implementing TARP which was passed at the end of the Bush presidency.  Of course we still have a too big to fail problem which neither party has done anything about.  He "saved" the auto industry.  That too was funded under TARP.  Of course he also did it through screwing bond holders and non-union pensioners.  He passed a stimulus bill.  Most recognize it for what it was.  A handout to his constituencies, which greatly reduced its effectiveness.   

 

That you would like to see Obama talk about working with Republicans is nice.  He has had four years.  He chose not to.  Look at Woodward's new book that reveals that the White House did not even have Boehner's phone number.  He was the House Minority Leader.  Obama doesn't even do a good job working with his own party leaders.  Clinton and Reagan worked with the other party.  When roadblocks occurred they went to the people and swayed them.  Obama has done neither and shows no inclination to change.  Time for change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't miss him.  As Buffett it is not only how intelligent you are, it is also how hard you work and the level of your ethics.  Clinton does not pass the ethics criteria in my book.

 

I second that.  On the other hand, W had ethics but made many poor decisions.  I believe O's ethics are on par with Clinton's, but unlike Clinton, his only talent is drumming up the masses.  He is not a policy guy, just a community organizer writ large.  Between the three, I'll go with Clinton.

 

W nearly took down the entire financial system...he can stick his ethics where the sun don't shine.  The U.S. also was the most hated country in the world for the better part of his tenure, and there was probably more crony capitalism under his watch then the previous 100 years combined. 

 

You can dislike Obama all you want for his policies, but the U.S.' global stature is back where it was under Clinton or Reagan.  And the biggest problem for the last 40 years has been U.S. dependence on foreign oil...whether anyone likes it or not, and you can debate all you want around the exact reasons (economic, innovation), that dependence is decreasing under Obama's watch.  W couldn't even do it after invading Iraq and taking over the oil infrastructure there.  You guys were all still driving 9 mpg Hummers then!

 

I've heard five speeches now from the conventions...Ryan, Romney, Romney's wife, Michelle Obama and Clinton.  Only one, Clinton, had a speech that talked about respect for members of the other party and trying to work with them.  I hope Obama takes that turn, because that's what he needs to do.  Cheers!

 

I obviously disagree strongly with your political views.  I also disagree with your understanding of the facts.  W did not nearly take down the financial system.  Did the system get near the brink of collapse?  In many ways, Yes.  Was it W's fault?  If so, how?  What did he specifically do, or not do, that nearly took down the financial system?  Tax cuts?  Obama supported renewing all of them and still supports renewing 80+% of them.  Medicare Part D?  I have not heard anyone call for its repeal?  Two expensive wars?  While unwise, and budget busters, they didn't cause the recession.  Budget deficits did not cause the recession.  Crony capitalism?  Your statement that it was worse under him than the last 100 years combined shows you do not have even a basic grasp of US history.  How is this W's fault any more than Congresses?  In fact Congress is the one that writes the laws.  (Which is what I find ironic about Harry Reid criticizing what Romney paid in taxes.  It is not Romney's fault, he followed the law, it is more Reid's fault).  Even the phrase "crony capitalism" is interesting in that it ignores crony governmentism (public sector unions, grants, etc).  It is a congressional problem and ultimately a voter problem since we continue to let it happen.

 

Fannie and Freddie?  The blame there is more (but not exclusively) on the Democrats in Congress who resisted changes.  How is a President to prevent a housing bubble?  Greed blinded the buyers, originators, and lenders.  Was the crisis due to lack of oversight on banks?  Not solely, but it certainly contributed.  Did W repeal Glass Steagall?  Nope, that was Clinton and the Republican Congress. 

 

Democrats are running around saying that the crisis was caused by failed policies of the past?  And therefore we need a new course.  Of course they don't mention many specific policies.  Interesting.  Well those basic policies (lower taxes and smaller government) were started under Reagan and continued through Clinton.  They worked fine for quite a while, and can in the future.       

 

US global stature is not the best barometer.  Wars will lower your support.  That Europe likes Democrats who share their views is not surprising. 

 

As for oil production increasing.  Come on.  Do you actually think Obama is that focused on it?  What specific policies did he push for in order to increase production?  How is he helping unlock reserves in the Bakken?  How is he helping offshore drilling?  It was the private sector that did it in spite of the obstacles.  By the way, Iraqi oil is Iraqi oil.  Iraqi production does not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

 

Lastly, what did Obama do that saved us from the crisis?  He stabilized the financial system.  That was done through implementing TARP which was passed at the end of the Bush presidency.  Of course we still have a too big to fail problem which neither party has done anything about.  He "saved" the auto industry.  That too was funded under TARP.  Of course he also did it through screwing bond holders and non-union pensioners.  He passed a stimulus bill.  Most recognize it for what it was.  A handout to his constituencies, which greatly reduced its effectiveness.   

 

That you would like to see Obama talk about working with Republicans is nice.  He has had four years.  He chose not to.  Look at Woodward's new book that reveals that the White House did not even have Boehner's phone number.  He was the House Minority Leader.  Obama doesn't even do a good job working with his own party leaders.  Clinton and Reagan worked with the other party.  When roadblocks occurred they went to the people and swayed them.  Obama has done neither and shows no inclination to change.  Time for change.

 

+1

 

Did W (or reps) create Fannie/freddie and encourage them to expand into subprime?  No, in fact reps tried to curb them and were stopped by Frank.

 

The housing bubble was caused by TOO much gov involvement, NOT TOO LITTLE.

 

-low interest rates

-tax subsidies

-Fannie/Freddie

-Regulation on Credit Rating Agencies creating oligopoly

-Regulation on insurers/banks/pensions encouraging reliance on ratings and lack of due diligence

-FDIC charging same rates to bad banks as good banks, encouraging risk taking

 

Parsad - you really think W caused the crisis? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"W nearly took down the entire financial system...he can stick his ethics where the sun don't shine.  The U.S. also was the most hated country in the world for the better part of his tenure, and there was probably more crony capitalism under his watch then the previous 100 years combined."

 

I had to copy and paste that, I needed another CHUCKLE!

 

 

That said, Parsad, thank you for this forum on INVESTING, maybe we should all stick to our circle of competence, eh?

(I needed to maintain my 100% attendance record for political discussions on an investing board. Of course, I have never been the one to start one of those threads!)

 

Cheers!  ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parsad, I usually like your comments but you are totally offbase here I think.

Tim Eriksen, you are the man!

 

++1 parsed comes off as a left wing extremist moreover his infatuation with Clinton is naive and typical of the younger generation clinging to sentimentality driven logic - ie times were good when I was 23 and Clinton was president. The guy got a freaking blow job in the oval office, he not only disrespected the presidency he set a sexual tone that has since metastasized. Finally I am so disappointed in how nobody on this board can see through the political bs and how clean and straight Romney is. Nobody has been able to find any dirt on Romney he's exactly what the world needs right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't miss him.  As Buffett it is not only how intelligent you are, it is also how hard you work and the level of your ethics.  Clinton does not pass the ethics criteria in my book.

 

I second that.  On the other hand, W had ethics but made many poor decisions.  I believe O's ethics are on par with Clinton's, but unlike Clinton, his only talent is drumming up the masses.  He is not a policy guy, just a community organizer writ large.  Between the three, I'll go with Clinton.

 

W nearly took down the entire financial system...he can stick his ethics where the sun don't shine.  The U.S. also was the most hated country in the world for the better part of his tenure, and there was probably more crony capitalism under his watch then the previous 100 years combined. 

 

You can dislike Obama all you want for his policies, but the U.S.' global stature is back where it was under Clinton or Reagan.  And the biggest problem for the last 40 years has been U.S. dependence on foreign oil...whether anyone likes it or not, and you can debate all you want around the exact reasons (economic, innovation), that dependence is decreasing under Obama's watch.  W couldn't even do it after invading Iraq and taking over the oil infrastructure there.  You guys were all still driving 9 mpg Hummers then!

 

I've heard five speeches now from the conventions...Ryan, Romney, Romney's wife, Michelle Obama and Clinton.  Only one, Clinton, had a speech that talked about respect for members of the other party and trying to work with them.  I hope Obama takes that turn, because that's what he needs to do.  Cheers!

 

I obviously disagree strongly with your political views.  I also disagree with your understanding of the facts.  W did not nearly take down the financial system.  Did the system get near the brink of collapse?  In many ways, Yes.  Was it W's fault?  If so, how?  What did he specifically do, or not do, that nearly took down the financial system?  Tax cuts?  Obama supported renewing all of them and still supports renewing 80+% of them.  Medicare Part D?  I have not heard anyone call for its repeal?  Two expensive wars?  While unwise, and budget busters, they didn't cause the recession.  Budget deficits did not cause the recession.  Crony capitalism?  Your statement that it was worse under him than the last 100 years combined shows you do not have even a basic grasp of US history.  How is this W's fault any more than Congresses?  In fact Congress is the one that writes the laws.  (Which is what I find ironic about Harry Reid criticizing what Romney paid in taxes.  It is not Romney's fault, he followed the law, it is more Reid's fault).  Even the phrase "crony capitalism" is interesting in that it ignores crony governmentism (public sector unions, grants, etc).  It is a congressional problem and ultimately a voter problem since we continue to let it happen.

 

Fannie and Freddie?  The blame there is more (but not exclusively) on the Democrats in Congress who resisted changes.  How is a President to prevent a housing bubble?  Greed blinded the buyers, originators, and lenders.  Was the crisis due to lack of oversight on banks?  Not solely, but it certainly contributed.  Did W repeal Glass Steagall?  Nope, that was Clinton and the Republican Congress. 

 

Democrats are running around saying that the crisis was caused by failed policies of the past?  And therefore we need a new course.  Of course they don't mention many specific policies.  Interesting.  Well those basic policies (lower taxes and smaller government) were started under Reagan and continued through Clinton.  They worked fine for quite a while, and can in the future.       

 

US global stature is not the best barometer.  Wars will lower your support.  That Europe likes Democrats who share their views is not surprising. 

 

As for oil production increasing.  Come on.  Do you actually think Obama is that focused on it?  What specific policies did he push for in order to increase production?  How is he helping unlock reserves in the Bakken?  How is he helping offshore drilling?  It was the private sector that did it in spite of the obstacles.  By the way, Iraqi oil is Iraqi oil.  Iraqi production does not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

 

Lastly, what did Obama do that saved us from the crisis?  He stabilized the financial system.  That was done through implementing TARP which was passed at the end of the Bush presidency.  Of course we still have a too big to fail problem which neither party has done anything about.  He "saved" the auto industry.  That too was funded under TARP.  Of course he also did it through screwing bond holders and non-union pensioners.  He passed a stimulus bill.  Most recognize it for what it was.  A handout to his constituencies, which greatly reduced its effectiveness.   

 

That you would like to see Obama talk about working with Republicans is nice.  He has had four years.  He chose not to.  Look at Woodward's new book that reveals that the White House did not even have Boehner's phone number.  He was the House Minority Leader.  Obama doesn't even do a good job working with his own party leaders.  Clinton and Reagan worked with the other party.  When roadblocks occurred they went to the people and swayed them.  Obama has done neither and shows no inclination to change.  Time for change.

 

Gee Tim, tell me what you really think!  It's about what I expected. 

 

It's funny how it's always about Obama and the Democrats not working with the Republicans.  Who got almost everything they wanted in the last budget session?  The Republicans pretty much bullied their way through.  What exactly on the Democrat's agenda was appeased? 

 

Obama has a hard time with his own party, because he's pretty much towed the line from previous administrations (both Democrat and Republican) on budget issues, tax cuts, foreign policy (except Dubya) and state issues.  Most of you Republicans characterize him as some left-wing, Marxist activist who is going to destroy the country, yet he's actually been more centre-right than anything else in the last four years. 

 

You talk about Reagan and Clinton, yet it was Bush who started the country on this road down deficits and doubling debt.  If the finances were in better shape under Bush, do you think the country would have been in better or worse shape to handle the recesson?  Oh that little budget buster war in Iraq...one that should not have been fought in the first place.  What about all of the money and lives lost on a war that never should have been.  What about all of the fraudulent and inflated bills paid to companies associated with Bush & Cheney? 

 

Back in February 2003, Bush changed the watchdog over Fannie and Freddie because of fears there, yet he went on to pour more gasoline on the fire with lax regulation on banks, lenders, easy monetary policy and loose credit for consumers for another four years.  This was a guy who bankrupted several companies, and now he was in charge of the United States of America...what the heck did you think was going to happen!  In September 2003, there was further inquiry into FNM and FRE, yet no changes in legislation or regulation.  And what was stopping Bush from enacting tougher lending standards on banks and other financial institutions, or especially mortgage backed securities?  How about hedge funds?  I was writing about hedge funds back in 2006 and early 2007, yet nothing happened.  No tighter regulation or transparency. 

 

I was criticizing his policies way back on the Motley Fool board and also on the old MSN board.  Some people saw the blowup coming a mile away, most saw it coming much closer, yet his administration just kept on pouring gasoline on the whole damn thing.  We all saw Angelo Mozillo on CNBC talking about 110% financed mortgages...did Bush or his administration do anything?  No!  The  Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission stated that this crisis was avoidable...so who the heck was responsible for avoiding it for the seven years before it happened...Bush!

 

Honestly, I don't think Bush was solely responsible for the problems.  I do that to wind you guys up.  There were alot of people responsible and it goes back to Reagan, then Clinton, but Bush was a significant part of the problem and his cronies were even more of a problem. 

 

You guys complain that Obama hasn't done much to fix the problems...it was one hell of a problem to deal with...yet he's dealing with the problem the same way Republicans would have dealt with it...since many of them are still in charge of fiscal and monetary policy.  You want change because you're impatient...but the change you are going to get is worse for the entire system. 

 

I don't want to see the dark days of the Bush administration repeated.  I don't think any administration could have done a worse job with foreign policy than Dubya & Chaingang Cheney, so Romney & Ryan are a step up from that.  But it's your country, and you will have to decide where you go from here.  I think Clinton said it best...is it on your own or are you in this together?  Cheers! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parsad, I usually like your comments but you are totally offbase here I think.

Tim Eriksen, you are the man!

 

++1 parsed comes off as a left wing extremist moreover his infatuation with Clinton is naive and typical of the younger generation clinging to sentimentality driven logic - ie times were good when I was 23 and Clinton was president. The guy got a freaking blow job in the oval office, he not only disrespected the presidency he set a sexual tone that has since metastasized. Finally I am so disappointed in how nobody on this board can see through the political bs and how clean and straight Romney is. Nobody has been able to find any dirt on Romney he's exactly what the world needs right now.

 

Better a blowjob in the Oval Office than coming out of the closet after cheating on your wife during trysts with your gay lover.  Everytime I hear of a politician who voted against same sex marriage, but then got caught cheating with his gay lover, it's always been a Republican!  Not saying that Romney is going to get caught.  ;D

 

It's funny how sex in the oval office is deemed to be more offensive than 100,000+ people getting blown up over a war that never should have happened...I'm glad you've got your priorities straight Moore!  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he not only disrespected the presidency he set a sexual tone that has since metastasized.

 

Like this lifting of state tyranny in Texas?

 

http://www.wnd.com/2003/06/19490/

 

Citing the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the high court said in its 6-3 ruling that states cannot punish homosexual couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest valueInv

Nobody has been able to find any dirt on Romney he's exactly what the world needs right now.

Thats because he hasn't released his tax returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest valueInv

It's funny how it's always about Obama and the Democrats not working with the Republicans.  Who got almost everything they wanted in the last budget session?  The Republicans pretty much bullied their way through.  What exactly on the Democrat's agenda was appeased? 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/05/speed-read-juiciest-bits-from-bob-woodward-s-book-price-of-politics.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...