- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 6,902
- Reaction score
- 4,825
- Location
- Space Coast
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Not sure, although I do know that senate republicans threatened to veto any long term appointment, including Warren. Not sure why he didn't select her as his recess appointment, or how her not attaining the position makes her any less reputable or competent.Ok. If Warren is such a sterling human being why isnt she heading up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Go back and look up the quotes, I'll wait.
I think its this one:
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
The problem is Warren seems to think this means that you can just tax something until it doesnt move anymore--her actions indicate that as does her demonization of business. There are lots of reasons to dislike Warren, the problem is she not only stuck her foot in her mouth on the indian indentity thing, she doubled down on it. She looks dishonest. Thats a problem for voters whose issue research is about 10 minutes deep. Which, unfortunately, is most of them.
the republicans assured the president that they would not confirm her to the postOk. If Warren is such a sterling human being why isnt she heading up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Go back and look up the quotes, I'll wait.
it's quite a good one. lots of insight and common sense there ... probably too deep for the reich wingers to grasp howeverI think its this one:
notice that she applauds those who build business; those who thrive under the capitalistic system“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
she did NOT say thatThe problem is Warren seems to think this means that you can just tax something until it doesnt move anymore
what actions are you speaking about? please be specific--her actions indicate that as does her demonization of business.
other than being a democrat on the verge of dislodging a GOP senator, what are those other reasons?There are lots of reasons to dislike Warren,
in your view it would appear telling the truth is now deemed 'doubling down'. pitythe problem is she not only stuck her foot in her mouth on the indian indentity thing, she doubled down on it.
well, someone does, but there are no signs that it is Elizabeth WarrenShe looks dishonest.
well deepen the ability for prospective voters. answer my above questions ... if you dareThats a problem for voters whose issue research is about 10 minutes deep. Which, unfortunately, is most of them.
MG, I'll tell you this. If I did two flowcharts; one representing the Warren logic of that speech she gave this year that got ripped to shreds and the way things actually work it would take me hours. That is, it would take me about five minutes to break down the Warren logic including finding the proper flow chart and drawing it, if I went through office it would take me about 1.5 minutes due to the extremely simplistic linear logic used. The rebuttle would actually take me hours because there is so much she either doesn't understand or less likely just plain left out. That is just from one failure of hers.No. Just simple common sense and facts.
Nope, she's lethally stupid. That is, she can do a lot of damage if given any real position of authority and we'd all rather not having to fix her **** ups by getting rid of her sorry ass before it's a problem. Kind of like refusing to hire Forrest Gump when you need to send a rocket into space.Something tells me she's a relatively strong candidate, given the fact that there are 70 pages dedicated to a "controversy" of such dubious importance. Any recent polling data for this particular race?
According to you, yes. According to her body of work, no. I'll be sure to take your opinions into deep consideration however, seeing as you've validated them quite thoroughly with some sterling personal insults in lieu of supporting evidence.Nope, she's lethally stupid.
That is she can do a lot of damage if given any real position of authority and we'd all rather not having to fix her **** ups by getting rid of her sorry ass before it's a problem. Kind of like refusing to hire Forrest Gump when you need to send a rocket into space.
Her body of work has been as anti-business and anti-libertarian as it comes. From a person claiming to "champion the people" she sure does try to cut off the people giving them the opportunities to earn a living. Do you think the attacks she lobs against those businesses happen in a vacuum?According to you, yes. According to her body of work, no. I'll be sure to take your opinions into deep consideration however, seeing as you've validated them quite thoroughly with some sterling personal insults in lieu of supporting evidence.
Uh-huh. So you attack a couple of mistakes done because I'm in a hurry. Sorry I cannot be gramatically correct all the time, would you like to address the point with some kind of rebuttle or keep up the ad homs?Is this supposed to be coherent? We'd all rather not having to fix her **** ups by getting rid of her sorry ass? Apparently you honed your finely refined debate skills on a middle school playground.
Really? I haven't noticed any such occurrences, perhaps you could go into more detail.Her body of work has been as anti-business and anti-libertarian as it comes. From a person claiming to "champion the people" she sure does try to cut off the people giving them the opportunities to earn a living. Do you think the attacks she lobs against those businesses happen in a vacuum?
Uh-huh. So you attack a couple of mistakes done because I'm in a hurry. Sorry I cannot be gramatically correct all the time,
would you like to address the point with some kind of rebuttle or keep up the ad homs?
It's going to take hours of work to fully explain the idiocy that is Warren and frankly I need to hit the gym. I will go ahead and do that later, hang tight.Really? I haven't noticed any such occurrences, perhaps you could go into more detail.
I wasn't attacking your grammatical errors, I was making light of your use of playground style slang in lieu of you know..actual substance.
What point? I must have missed it.
No. Just simple common sense and facts.
It's going to take hours of work to fully explain the idiocy that is Warren and frankly I need to hit the gym. I will go ahead and do that later, hang tight.
Ms.Warren has been the champian of working families & the bane of unscrupulous business people for years.
This Native Heritage ginned up controversy, is just Wall St. champion Scott Brown's trying to Swiftboat her chances. It has worked to a degree, I believe she would be farther ahead without this jive ass story.
In November 2008, Warren was tapped by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to chair the Congressional Oversight Panel, which was created to monitor the $700 billion bank bailout effort known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Warren headed investigations, conducted televised public hearings, led interviews of government officials and submitted monthly reports demanding accountability from banks. For her oversight efforts, The Boston Globe named Elizabeth ‘Bostonian of the Year’ in 2009.
In July 2011, Warren helped design the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. The main goal of the CFPB was to police credit lenders and prevent consumers from unwittingly signing up for risky loans. But, due largely in part to Republican opposition, Warren was not chosen to head the agency. She stepped down from the post in August 2011, and in September 2011, President Obama appointed Warren as his special assistant
Elizabeth Warren Biography - Facts, Birthday, Life Story - Biography.comeace
p.s. I am a Massachusetts voter.
Yeah you sound like one.
The problem with the quote is the context. The quote is being used as a justification to demonize, tax and regulate business into oblivion. Thats the problem, she believes government has not only the right to exact social justice but an obligation to do so. Government is not obligated to enact social justice, government is obligated to act within the constitution and the mandates of congress, no more, no less.
Warren feels it should do something more and has a self righteous attitude about it, is that really the kind of person you want wielding power over your life? I sure dont, Id rather a public servant were humble and careful in all they do, than to be so full of their own ideas that those ideas become all that matters to them.
Yep, the state that didn't vote for Nixon!!!
I suplied the link, if you wanted to read the whole thing!
You are wrong, her proposals are aimed at regulating what a company can hide, eliminating small print surprises in contracts, things like that, it's aimed at protecting consumers from predatory practices. This is the reason that the Congressional R's won't vote to fund it. So in practice, although the Dodd-Frank reforms are in place, they have no teeth, for without a budgit it's nothing.
& Dodd-Frank, like Warren are posion to the R's, although most have no understanding of either!eace
You are wrong, her proposals are aimed at regulating what a company can hide, eliminating small print surprises in contracts, things like that, it's aimed at protecting consumers from predatory practices.
This is the reason that the Congressional R's won't vote to fund it.
So in practice, although the Dodd-Frank reforms are in place, they have no teeth, for without a budgit it's nothing.
Dodd-Frank, like Warren are posion to the R's, although most have no understanding of either!
And yet nothing that I am aware of goes after such predatory lender such as title loans, check advances, and despicable schemes such as those perpetrated by the likes of Russel Simons, and now Montel Williams. Most of these target the poor, and minority population with interest rates as high as 397% APR.
Wow, libs are so compassionate.
No, it is an oversight issue, like in the very dishonest way that Obama appointed the head of the CFBP earlier this year.
Good, it's not good to enable un american practice.
Nah, we understand it, we just don't like it, nor do we subscribe to the anti success, social justice, marxist, BS plan that is the libs wet dream.
j-mac
And yet nothing that I am aware of goes after such predatory lender
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?