The Dems were DUPED along with everyone else by the Wall Street Casino Shysters. Furthermore it is hard to stop something that you are not aware is happening. The GOP had ELIMINATED any need for income verification to obtain a loan and GUTTED the SEC so that there was NO OVERSIGHT on the criminal bundling of the mortgages. Without any red flags to warn the Dems it is disingenuous to blame them for something that they were not aware was happening. The better question is WHY did NO ONE in the GOP raise any red flags? That makes them ALL COMPLICIT in this crime.
Spare me the faux moral outrage—there is not one single ethical politician in Washington. While the farce will be an entertaining, and the hypocrisy rich with self-delusion, the moral decay in American politics is becoming lethal to the principle of Individual Rights. Yes. Trump has earned impeachment, as did Clinton, Bush, and Obama, as well as every single member of congress. We need a revolution, not a physical one, a philosophical one—a revolution in ethics and politics—a revolution in ideas—ideas like Ayn Rand’s. Ayn Rand: “Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted. This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.”—http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html Obviously, this is not a principle held immutable by today’s ideologues and post-modern anti-intellectuals, especially ones like Trump, Schumer, Giuliani, Biden, Barr, Pelosi, and way too many more. We get the leaders we elect; it’s time to demand better. It’s time to hold out for leaders that won’t hold us up. It’s time to end the reign of tears and fears, of faith and muscle. It’s time to end the age of the pull-peddlers. It’s time to rediscover the Age of Enlightenment. It’s time for the minds of reason.
Why didn’t Barbie Frank stop it ??? Why didn’t anyone on Wall Street short all stocks before the financial crisis ???
Too late. Democrats didn't take control of the House until January 2007 (following the 2006 election). Most of the subprime borrowing took place between 2004 and 2006. IOW, most of the "junk mortgages" were already in the system, with Republican approval. And, a few people on Wall Street DID short stock...that was Dick Fuld's complaint.
Every supporter of the Progressive Left and every supporter of the Religious Right, and every die-hard Trump sycophant. Every pragmatist, Every single politician in America. And as for the premise that we are a nation governed by objective law and not by a bureaucrat's and a politician's whim--well, it is obvious that that quaint notion is quickly dying. You know, even the pigs in Animal Farm had laws--tyrannical, despotic, brutal, irrational, unreasonable, unproductive, unjust, non-objective, and immoral, but, they were laws all the same. So did the Soviet Union. So what's your point? Is it that you believe the Progressives will heroically save us from Donald Trump? And who will save us from those faux heroes? Those incompetent hypocrites? Those haters of human life? Those spawners of Non-Objective law? I know who--any who wish to think for themselves. Ayn Rand: "When men are caught in the trap of non-objective law, when their work, future and livelihood are at the mercy of a bureaucrat’s whim, when they have no way of knowing what unknown “influence” will crack down on them for which unspecified offense, fear becomes their basic motive, if they remain in the industry at all—and compromise, conformity, staleness, dullness, the dismal grayness of the middle-of-the-road are all that can be expected of them. Independent thinking does not submit to bureaucratic edicts, originality does not follow “public policies,” integrity does not petition for a license, heroism is not fostered by fear, creative genius is not summoned forth at the point of a gun. Non-objective law is the most effective weapon of human enslavement: its victims become its enforcers and enslave themselves."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/law,_objective_and_non-objective.html And non-objective law is what both the Left and Right preach, practice, codify, and enact. Their point is not to fight for "what's right", but to play "gotcha".
Depends on the laws, doesn't it?. If its something akin to Hitler's Nuremberg Laws, ah, fk that. If they're objective and based on the principle of individual rights and not the collective good, I'm all in. So, I'm in favor of a nation under objective law created to protect the rights of the individual. I am not in favor of a nation with non-objective law whose interpretation depends on the whims of a bureaucrat or the prejudices of the majority. For example, the Fair Housing Act, the Endangered Species Act, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, anything that has anything to do with the EPA, the FCC, the IRS, or whatever other nonsense political mediocrities create. In essence, any law that puts the public welfare over the rights of the individual--that's how tyrannies are created. We are no longer a nation of objective law, we are a nation of political correctness bowing to the gang of the moment, and at the mercy of government bureaucrats as we seek permission to live. Ayn Rand: "The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives_vs_liberals.html
Barnie could have alerted everyone of the danger of loans with zero down payments. Nobody saw the financial crisis coming which resulted from banking regulations. How many ??
OK...so you aren't REALLY in favor of a nation under law; you are in favor of a "nation under 'objective law,'" which is whatever you decide it is. Thanks, but no thanks. I think I prefer a "nation under law" according to our Constitutional process of the passage of law by elected representatives, which may be reviewed by the Supreme Court for its constitutionality. And...while I respect Ayn Rand's efforts to clarify the true meaning of law, I really don't think we needed her for that purpose. Good novelist though. I enjoyed her books and the films. Hitler, I believe, took power legally, under an "Emergency Powers Act" in the Weimar Constitution. He asked the Reichstag for the powers following the Reichstag fire and they gave him those powers. Of course, he never gave them back...and that may have led to his Nuremberg Laws. Think you'll find that while individual judges and prosecutors may have "disappeared," for the most part, the Nazis followed the Weimar judicial system, however much they may have "bullied" its members.
When the law no longer protects the rights of the individual, it's no longer the law--it's a surrender to tyranny. And yes, I decide which laws to obey and which laws not to--based on what's best for me. And that's all that matters to me. However, if anyone is under the impression that this impeachment is nothing but a grab for power by those without it, I suggest they quit voting--they're fkng up the country. This impeachment is nothing but political absurdity and moral hypocrisy.
You realize, of course, when you put your personal opinion above the "law," you've basically cut ties with the principle of the "social contract." You stand outside of society. The basic principle of "under law" is that we surrender a portion of our individuality (and sovereignty) to the Legislature and they make the laws, within Constitutional limits, by majority rule, either by simple majority or super majorities, per the Constitution.
I don't ascribe to the theory of social contract. I support only one form government, a constitutional republic based on the principle of individual rights. Nor do I accept that being civilized means surrendering your individuality or sovereignty to the state. Quite the opposite, civilization means subordinating the state to the rights of the individual. The state exists to protect man's rights; man doesn't exist to serve the state.
Stating some one is above the law comes with the "assumption" of the law, which in turn says you must state the law they where above.
Actually, having a President trying to force a foreign leader to get involved in demeaning a political opponent during an election, is a crime, as defined by the Constitution.
Interesting...and how do you define that "constitutional republic," which is, in effect, "a social contract?" Ever read Hobbes or Locke? The social contract doesn't require that you surrender ALL of your individual rights. Ours are protected in the Bill of Rights...the first ten amendments. It does require that you obey the law and surrender the making of constitutional law to a legislative body, elected freely by the electorate, and representing you as a result of those elections.
The Ukraine call is grounds for impeachment, & Trump's ongoing obstruction of Congressional action is also.
That's debatable and one facet of the impeachment inquiry. One question will be: why did you withhold aid to Ukraine, when Congress had appropriated it and your own administration (Defense & State) had already certified Ukraine as "acceptable?" And, why did you then release the aid, following the tel-con exposure?
another question would be why did Biden get Ukraine the aid after they fired the prosecutor? Two can play at that game.. it's still innocent until proven guilty..
The prosecutor whom Biden, the U.S. government, the IMF and the EU wanted fired was thought to be a pro-Russian hold-over from the pro-Russian President Yanukovych, who fled Ukraine during the last Ukraine revolution and is now living in Moscow. The IMF also threatened to withhold $1.7 billion in loans if corruption in Ukraine continued. Shokin (the ousted prosecutor) more recently gave a deposition to an Austrian court, in support of a former pro-Russian Ukrainian businessman, now fighting extradition to the United States for various financial fraud charges (Dmitry Firtash). Firtash, who was involved in the Ukrainian energy industry was granted a "fee," under Yanukovych, whereby all of the Russian natural gas flowing through Ukraine to Western Europe paid Firtash a percentage of the value of the natural gas. Presumably, it was felt that that "fee" was subdivided and went into the pockets of pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs and a kick-back to Russian oligarchs, with a percentage of the percentages possibly going to Yanukovych and Putin. I suspect much of this will come out in the impeachment inquiry when Rudy's activities in Ukraine are investigated. The Shokin deposition, in support of Firtash fight against extradition to the U.S., accuses Biden of pressuring Ukraine in conjunction with the hiring of his son. Given the other parties involved, the charge would seem to me to be doubtful and possibly part of a deal to exchange the charge against Biden for dropping the extradition of Firtash and U.S. charges against him...it's "The Art of the Deal."
Let me tell you. If the Dept of Justice is concerned about potential criminal conduct outside the US, without a victim in the US, they can refer what they know themselves to the equivalent prosecutors office that has jurisdiction in the Ukraine. They presume that the Ukraine is perfectly capable of setting its own priorities, and agenda about what cases it wants to investigate or prosecute, without any meddling help that it did not ask for.They keep it AWAY from the White House, especially if the person of interest happens to be the son of the President's likely opponent.
