Comments on: ABC: It’s Gates (UPDATED)

By: Total

Total — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:19:54 +0000

“because they failed to stop him from shooting President Reagan.“
Excellent. So the Secret Service should feel all virtuous and proud because they failed to protect Reagan from Hinckley? Really? My guess is that that’s not the way they felt.
So you’re sticking with the ‘Republicans are hopelessly incompetent at governing’ theory? Excellent. Embarrassing for you, but still…

By: bdwilcox

bdwilcox — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:27:43 +0000

“I do have some sympathy for you at this point. You’re stuck with the argument, but you’re beginning to realize the horrible flaw of logic in it. You can’t make the case against the Democrats without demonstrating massive Republican incompetence as well. If it was the Democrats who did it, it was the Republicans (holding the levers of power) who failed to stop it.“
–The horrible flaw in logic is your attempt to provide moral equivalence between people who actively undermined and destroyed an economy with their irresponsible policies and those who tried, but failed, to stop them. That’s like saying the Secret Service was as morally corrupt and as much to blame as John Hinckley, Jr. because they failed to stop him from shooting President Reagan.
Please stop before you hurt yourself.

By: Alice

Alice — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:38:45 +0000

Get over it, will you? Do you Repulicans know how foolish you sound? All during the pre-election process you were screamining "No Experience!" "We'll be up the creek without a paddle if Obama's elected because he knows NOTHING!!!" Now that he's elected and is choosing EXPERIENCED people to be in his Cabinet and on his staff, you're crying "FOUL!" "NO Fair! These are Clinton retreads!" And who should he hire - Shrub's team? Unknowns? He's hiring experienced people who served the President who left office with the biggest surplice in the history of our nation. Why don't you go take all your moral indignation and let it out over child abuse - they can use all the help they can get.

By: Total

Total — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:56:27 +0000

“The only argument I’m a prisoner of is an argument with you, which makes me feel like I’m a prisoner in an insane asylum.“
I do have some sympathy for you at this point. You’re stuck with the argument, but you’re beginning to realize the horrible flaw of logic in it. You can’t make the case against the Democrats without demonstrating massive Republican incompetence as well. If it was the Democrats who did it, it was the Republicans (holding the levers of power) who failed to stop it.
Heckuva job, there, bd, heckuva job.

By: bdwilcox

bdwilcox — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:33:33 +0000

The only argument I’m a prisoner of is an argument with you, which makes me feel like I’m a prisoner in an insane asylum.

By: bdwilcox

bdwilcox — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:27:04 +0000

“So you’re going to stick with the ‘Republicans are too incompetent to govern effectively, even when they

By: Total

Total — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:55:10 +0000

So you’re going to stick with the “Republicans are too incompetent to govern effectively, even when they

By: bdwilcox

bdwilcox — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:29:46 +0000

Oops, just as I suspected. The 2005 legislation was killed in committee by the Democrats who wouldn’t allow a full vote. All Republicans voted for it, all Democrats against it:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28664,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
“In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent.“
…
“If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005–2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.”

By: bdwilcox

bdwilcox — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:20:29 +0000

Might also want to read Orson Scott Card’s assessment of Democrat culpability as well (Hint, he’s a Democrat.):
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
Referenced in Card’s article, the inimitable Thomas Sowell:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/03/do_facts_matter?page=full&comments=true

By: bdwilcox

bdwilcox — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:13:38 +0000

Total, you should change your name to Totally clueless, because you obviously don’t know how the Congress works.
For example, Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006 on the platform of stopping the Iraq war. Guess a simple majority isn’t that effective, is it?
Unless you have a guaranteed super-majority (especially 60 votes in the Senate) which the Republicans didn’t, passing things through Congress is not cut and dried, no matter who the technical majority is. Bills are still killed in committee before even reaching a vote, especially when committees are chaired primarily by the other party. Filibusters are particularly effective, as well. But having a simple majority is very tough, especially when the Republican party was, and is, rife with RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) like Olympia Snow and Lincoln Chafee who constantly undermined their slim majority.
The difference here between the Democrats who claimed they were “fooled” into voting for the war and the Republicans who were unable to stop the Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac machine is that the Republicans weren’t fooled, actively tried to stop the crisis from happening, and were stymied at every turn by Democrats. Both Republican bills to avert the disaster, the 2003 bill and the McCain sponsored 2005 bill, were 100% unanimously voted against by the Democrats.
Your sophistry might work against some, but to those who know better, it’s just the same old liberal lies.