wackyracer
-
Posts
173 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Articles
Media Demo
Profiles
Forums
Posts posted by wackyracer
-
-
Turns out it is politics and vested interest:
Did Sen. Harry Reid drive the standoff at the Bundy ranch for personal gain?
Claim: The Bundy Ranch deal is all about Nevada Sen. Harry Reid "using federal violence to take people’s land in his state so he can package it to re-sell it to the Chinese."
Bloggers on Thursday, April 17th, 2014 in multiple blog and video posts
PolitiFact verdict: The Republic Broadcasting Network said Sen. Reid was behind the use of force to take away Bundy’s land and sell it to the Chinese. There is nothing accurate about this claim. The dispute involved Bundy’s long use of federal land without a permit. The land gained protected status long before solar energy projects were on the table. The Chinese solar energy proposal no longer exists. The land where such projects might be developed are far from Bundy’s property.
We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
-
Politics seems to be playing a major role in the investigation process. In this case, Republicans seem to put the blame on the Obama administration for the Benghazi tragedy. Finger pointing should be set aside in favor of an objective investigation as to why there was a failure in intelligence.
Politics or extreme partisanship seems to be the main agenda of the Republicans in the Obama era. This was clear from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's pronouncement November 2010:
Since the first objective failed miserably, they are looking ahead to 2016 with Hillary Clinton as the new target. So even with the absence of any proof, the Benghazi issue continues to be one of the talking points of Fox News in the hopes that it would damage the stature of presidential contender Hillary Clinton.
-
By THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: December 30, 2013
An exhaustive investigation by The Times goes a long way toward resolving any nagging doubts about what precipitated the attack on the United States mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
The report by David Kirkpatrick, The Times’s Cairo bureau chief, and his team turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or another international terrorist group had any role in the assault, as Republicans have insisted without proof for more than a year. The report concluded that the attack was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s air power and other support during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and that it was fueled, in large part, by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
In a rational world, that would settle the dispute over Benghazi, which has further poisoned the poisonous political discourse in Washington and kept Republicans and Democrats from working cooperatively on myriad challenges, including how best to help Libyans stabilize their country and build a democracy. But Republicans long ago abandoned common sense and good judgment in pursuit of conspiracy-mongering and an obsessive effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may run for president in 2016.
On the Sunday talk shows, Representatives Mike Rogers and Darrell Issa, two Republicans who are some of the administration’s most relentless critics of this issue, dismissed The Times’s investigation and continued to press their own version of reality on Benghazi.
Mr. Issa talked of an administration “cover-up.” Mr. Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who has called Benghazi a “preplanned, organized terrorist event,” said his panel’s findings that Al Qaeda was involved was based on an examination of 4,000 classified cables. If Mr. Rogers has evidence of a direct Al Qaeda role, he should make it public. Otherwise, The Times’s investigation, including extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack, stands as the authoritative narrative.
While the report debunks Republican allegations, it also illuminates the difficulties in understanding fast-moving events in the Middle East and in parsing groups that one moment may be allied with the West and in another, turn adversarial. Americans are often careless with the term “Al Qaeda,” which strictly speaking means the core extremist group, founded by Osama bin Laden, that is based in Pakistan and bent on global jihad.
Republicans, Democrats and others often conflate purely local extremist groups, or regional affiliates, with Al Qaeda’s international network. That prevents understanding the motivations of each group, making each seem like a direct, immediate threat to the United States and thus confusing decision-making.
The report is a reminder that the Benghazi tragedy represents a gross intelligence failure, something that has largely been overlooked in the public debate. A team of at least 20 people from the Central Intelligence Agency, including highly skilled commandos, was operating out of an unmarked compound about a half-mile southeast of the American mission when the attack occurred. Yet, despite the C.I.A. presence and Ambassador Stevens’s expertise on Libya, “there was little understanding of militias in Benghazi and the threat they posed to U.S. interests,” a State Department investigation found. The C.I.A. supposedly did its own review. It has not been made public, so there is no way to know if the agency learned any lessons.
-
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
December 28, 2013
New York Times
... Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
... Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.
The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
-
i also asked, since you called the Tea Party a bunch of morons over, yes, the shutdown, what you thought of the GOP's proposals to keep the fed funded.
it's not like the shutdown silently crept up on that whole lot (the congress), and yet only one party gets blamed. incidentally, why was the white house happy to be winning that debate, when the truth was the whole nation was losing. it's not gobbledygook when the administration issues directives to "make [the shutdown] hurt," prompting the government to mistakenly shut down a private park, or keeping visiting veterans away from a war memorial, just to make a point.
it seemed to me, listening to both sides in the weeks leading to the shutdown and in the weeks after, that what the GOP wanted was to cut spending, reduce debt, and yes...fight Obamacare. as a small-government kind of gal, i get that.
as for the budget proposal riders you spoke of, to "sabotage" Obamacare, recent events show clearly why the "morons" wanted to stop that. now if it were me in congress, i would've let the Affordable Health Care Act through cleanly, let the people see just how much they love losing their coverage or their doctors, and let them vote accordingly in the next election. that's me, i'm reprehensible that way. but some tea party senators, like ted cruz, were voted in specifically because they ran on platforms promising to do something about problematic laws and unfair exemptions to democratic "friends" like what we've touched on here.
It cannot be over-emphasized that passing the budget is a mandatory job of Congress. In July of 2013, Republican House Speaker John Boehner approached Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and offered to pass a clean Budget Resolution (without any Obamacare riders) if the Democrats agree to a $70 Billion spending cut. The Democrats agreed and the deal was cut. The Republicans eventually reneged on this agreement because according to Boehner, they decided to make a stand against Obamacare. (As pointed out previously, Obamacare has nothing to do with the Budget Act. The Affordable Health Care Act does not depend on the Budget Act for its funding and so can be taken on by the Republicans as a separate issue to deal with.) The short of it, they decided to hold hostage the U.S. government by withholding the funding up until their demands are met on de-funding Obamacare. Upping the ante, they threatened to let the U.S. government default on its debt by not acting on the debt ceiling. Surely, not funding the U.S. Government and pushing it to default on its debt was the quickest way to k*ll off America -- not the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
The Republicans reneged on a deal and decided to take a stand as admitted by Boehner. They should own up to it. This is not Harry Reid's government shutdown, not President Barrack Obama's government shutdown, it is without a doubt a Republican Tea Party government shutdown. The Republicans are fully aware of the consequences of a Government Shutdown that is why senior Republicans were against it up until they caved in to the 80 Tea Party representatives in August (because of personal political considerations with the incoming elections). They shut down the government but expect a few select government programs that they like to continue running. I wouldn't call that smart.
The Republican goals to cut spending and reduce the deficit are worthy, and at this time, necessary goals. However, everyone except a minority conservative base believe that shutting down the government and inducing a debt default will help in achieving these goals. The fact that Speaker Boehner trimmed down $70 Billion from the proposed Budget Act proves that it can be done through compromise. The government shutdown was estimated to have cost the economy $16 Billion and 120,000 new private sector jobs and shaved off 0.2-0.6 from the GDP. This does not yet take into account the impact of the government shutdown on consumer and business confidence.
The avenues attendant to a working representative democracy was and is available to every American, especially the Tea Party. They can turn to the law-making (or law-repealing as in this case)powers of Congress or the oversight powers of the Supreme Court or the electoral vote (by electing another president such as in 2012)to make their voices heard about their views on the ACA. In fact, they did (although they have been rebuffed quite a number of times but then they are free to try again). It can be done without torching the U.S. economy and the global economy along with it.
SIDE ISSUES
++ What exactly are the GOP proposals put forward to keep the government funded? I've read some and I think I've answered that by saying that discussions on the Affordable Care Act should be separate from the Appropriations Act. If you're talking about the piece-meal funding for select government programs proposed during the Government Shutdown, I believe that giving in to those would just encourage the Republicans to prolong the shutdown. And we all agree that the Government Shutdown is bad for all involved.
++ The "government directive" to make the shutdown hurt is sketchy at best. It was being used as a Republican ploy for sympathy in the early part of the government shutdown. True or not, closing up the War Memorial or the Panda cam is an inconvenience I deem minuscule to the real damage being done to all Americans by prolonging the government shutdown. If inconveniencing a few park visitors would bring out an immediate end to the government shutdown, that's not a bad bargain.
Here are the Republicans complaining that the government is squeezing them by shutting down memorial parks and yet conveniently forget that they are the ones doing the squeezing by withholding the budget. That if it were not for them, the parks would not have been shut down in the first place.
++ The idea that the White House was happy about the government shutdown is not accurate and is a derivative of a Wall Street Journal article quoting a supposed still-unnamed senior WH official thus: "We are winning ... It doesn't really matter to us" how long the shutdown lasts "because what matters is the end result." The quote was promptly disavowed by WH Press Secretary Jay Carney. (I would understand, however, if in private, they are amused at how the Republican Party is self-destructing.) But I know of at least two House Republicans happy about the shutdown:
Rep. Michelle Bachmann on Fox News:
"We're really very energized today, we're really very strong. This is about the happiest I've seen members for a long time."
"We're very excited. It's exactly what we wanted and we got it."
Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz) on Face the Nation:
Said he thinks the government shutdown was a good idea. "It's about time."
-
no, you don't need to debate anything with me. i just thought you might relish the chance to explain which among the tea party's arguments vs implementing Obamacare is moronic. thought you might also know, since it is the law like you rightly say, why or how the president changed the law so that certain corporate entities got a waiver? and if corporations got it, why can't individuals get the same waiver? after all, isn't that what republicans want? a one-year waiver until they figured out all the effects the act would have?
It is unfortunate that your reply came after the Government Shutdown and the Debt Ceiling Crisis was resolved, albeit, temporarily with the capitulation of the Republican side.
You misread me. Nowhere did I touch on the topic of Obamacare, much less, the Tea Party arguments against it so there is no chance I'd be able to call it "moronic." The main focus of my post which you replied to is about the Government Shutdown and how the U.S. budget is being held hostage by an extremist faction of the Republican Party.
It seems to me you are itching to discuss the Affordable Health Care Act. Feel free to do so and educate us. I have not read this voluminous law and not really keen on doing so as it is an American Law that does not really impact me as a Filipino. I have avoided posting on this thread because it seems the Tea Party people have gone amok here with their gobbledygook and conspiracy theories. You seem to be a more reasonable poster, maybe you could expound on the salient points of the Healthcare Act. What I have heard so far is that Obamacare is endangering the Freedom of America. Why so? The latest I've heard from the Republicans, the banning of Transfats in food products is also endangering the Freedom of America.
-
Hmm....a unique point of view....
... best expounded in another thread
-
Philippine Daily Inquirer
9:55 pm | Thursday, October 3rd, 2013
To many, the shutdown of the US federal government is baffling. The consequences are as obvious as they are damaging, the way to a solution open and clear. And yet on Oct. 1, at midnight, the massive bureaucratic apparatus that runs the US federal government all but ground to a halt. Altogether, some 800,000 “nonessential” employees have been placed on unpaid furlough, many services have been rendered unavailable, the websites of such iconic institutions as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Library of Congress have been shuttered—and (the consequence with the most immediate impact in this part of the world) the scheduled visit of US President Barack Obama to the Philippines and Malaysia next week has been cancelled.
How did the world’s lone superpower come to such a sorry pass?
The long and short answer is: A minority of Republicans in the US Congress wanted it that way. Senior American journalist James Fallows pinpoints “two basic facts” about the shutdown that “would come as news to most of the public.” First: “If the House of Representatives voted on a ‘clean’ budget bill—one that opened up the closed federal offices but did not attempt to defund the Obama healthcare program—that bill would pass, and the shutdown would be over.” And second: “So far House Speaker John Boehner has refused to let this vote occur.”
We will not pretend that both the Democrats and the Republicans are equally at fault; as the title of an influential op-ed by scholars Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein in the Washington Post in April last year phrased it: “Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.” Their key paragraph reads: “The GOP [Grand Old Party] has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”
What has become clear in the slow-motion descent into shutdown limbo is that only a handful of Republican congressmen—maybe 30 to 40 “true hardliners,” according to National Review’s Washington editor Robert Costa—stand between a vote on a “clean” funding bill and a continuing shutdown. They are applying pressure on Boehner, to link a delay in the implementation of Obama’s signature healthcare program with a vote on the bill necessary to keep the US federal machinery working. By almost all accounts, Boehner has the numbers necessary, from enough Republicans and most of the Democrats, to pass the bill; but he hasn’t allowed a vote, precisely because it would pass. Passage, in all likelihood, would mean a second attempt among Republicans to unseat him.
In this sense, the politics of the shutdown of 2013 is not a true guide to the difference between money (in the form of the pork barrel and other incentives) and ideology, as drivers of political action. The hardliners in the US Congress, many of them elected into office on surging Tea Party momentum in 2010 and 2012, are correctly described as extreme not because of their ideology but because of their dismissiveness of the fundamental legitimacy of the Obama presidency. Let’s just say it: Insurgent Republicans have a problem with their country’s first black president.
That the link the hardliners insist on is to the Affordable Care Act is the giveaway. The so-called Obamacare represents a true landmark in the American political experience, a hard-fought legislative victory that no other American president had achieved. Since its enactment into law, it has been upheld by a Supreme Court with a Republican majority and validated by a presidential election. And yet the Republicans in the House of Representatives have voted again and again to try to repeal the law, to defund it, and finally “just” to delay its implementation by a year. By any measure of democracy the United States holds itself to, Obamacare has passed the test.
The irony is: Obamacare took effect on Oct. 1, the same day the US federal government shut down. Millions of Americans tried accessing the online marketplaces that the new law had made possible, resulting in server crashes and technical glitches. Policy wonk Ezra Klein summed up the situation nicely: “Washington was shut down because Republicans don’t want Obamacare. On the other hand, Obamacare was nearly shut down because so many Americans wanted Obamacare.”
Unfortunately, extremists will remain unmoved by the facts and the evidence.
-
are you, in effect, saying you like Obamacare? if so, what about it do you like? do you also like that Nancy Pelosi has given waivers in her district, mostly to friends? what do you think about the individual mandate, do you like that individuals can pay a $100 fine for not buying into it, and then get insurance on the day they need it, sans screenings?
besides, hasn't the GOP made 3 proposals on keeping the fed funded? who shot that down?
Intertwining the Obamacare issue with the Congressional duty to pass a budget is what is wrong with the Tea Party move. The Tea Party is basically holding hostage the U.S. government unless it capitulates to the Tea Party whims on Obamacare. Obamacare is a distinct and separate issue that has been subject of debate for the longest time. It was passed as law in 2009 by both Chambers of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the U.S. President. It was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court and the body deemed it constitutional. The Republican Tea Party tried to pass a law repealing Obamacare 41 times and failed to do so 41 times these past 4 years. Just imagine the waste of U.S. taxpayers money and the wasted time that should have been diverted to other pressing issues in crisis America. No wonder, the House has a measly 10% approval rating from the American populace.
Plain and simple, the Republican-dominated House did not pass a "clean" budget proposal. It wants to put a rider on it to sabotage the Affordable Health Care Act.
I don't need to debate Obamacare with you. The 2009 Affordable Health Care Act was debated upon and passed into law in the United States. It is the law. Whether we like it or not, it has to be implemented. If the Tea Party Republicans despise it, they should pass another law to repeal it. But as long as no such law is passed repealing Obamacare, leave it out of the Appropriations Act.
The Republicans are luring the American public to an Obamacare debate when it has really nothing to do with the current Appropriations Act. The result is that the first few days, several U.S. agencies and services were shut down. Ironically, the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act proceeded as other government agencies shut down.
As if America can afford it, the Republicans yet again hand it another self-inflicted crisis. Credit downgrade, sequestration, government shutdown, what's next?
-
After causing the U.S. Government to shut down by not passing the budget,
the House Republicans have the gall to complain about the adverse effects the shutdown is causing the American people.
What a bunch of Tea Party morons.
-
Score a win for the Republicans:
U.S. Government shuts down
-
-
Nice read, this thread. A recent article from Fr. Bernas may be of some use to this discussion.
By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
8:16 pm | Sunday, June 2nd, 2013
What can legally be said about the incursions of Chinese fishing and other vessels into Philippine waters? The first thing, of course, is to look into the laws that govern the seas.
The importance of the seas flows from two factors: first, they are a medium of transportation, and second, they contain vast natural resources. In the 17th century the Portuguese proclaimed vast areas of seas belonging to itself. But it was Grotius who elaborated the doctrine of the open seas which considers the high seas as a res communis accessible to all. The doctrine, however, recognized as permissible the delineation of a maritime belt by littoral states as an indivisible part of its domain.
In international law, specifically the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), there is such a thing as the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of a state or a state’s “patrimonial sea.” Both the Philippines and China are among the signatories to the Unclos and are therefore bound to respect its provisions.
To understand the extent of the authority of states over waters, one must begin with an understanding of baselines. The baseline is “the low-water line along the coast as marked on large scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State.” It is from this line that the various areas of a state’s authority over the sea are measured: the territorial sea, 12 nautical miles from the baseline; the contiguous zone, 24 nautical miles from the baseline; and the EEZ, 200 nautical miles from the baseline. The Philippines recently revised its baseline law to make it conform to the requirements under Unclos.
The doctrine on the EEZ is a recent development. Prior to the acceptance of this doctrine, all waters beyond the contiguous zone were considered high seas over which no state had control. The EEZ doctrine developed owing to the desire of coastal states for better conservation and management of coastal fisheries.
The coastal state has rights over the economic resources of the EEZ, that is, over its seabed, subsoil and waters. But the provisions on the EEZ are both a grant of rights to and an imposition of obligations on coastal states relative to the exploitation, management and preservation of the resources found within the zone.
Coastal states have two primary obligations. First, they must ensure through proper conservation and management measures that the living resources of the EEZ are not subjected to overexploitation. This includes the duty to maintain and restore populations of harvested fisheries at levels which produce a “maximum sustainable yield.” Second, they must promote the objective of “optimum utilization” of the living resources. They therefore should determine the allowable catch of living resources. If the coastal state does not have the capacity to harvest the allowable catch, it must grant access to other states.
The claim of the Philippine government is that Chinese fishing vessels continue to foray into the EEZ of the Philippines without the needed consent from the Philippine government and in fact against the wishes of the Philippine government and to the prejudice of the economic rights of the Philippines over its patrimonial sea.
Considering the width of the patrimonial sea which a state may claim and the distances between states, it is inevitable that the areas claimed by them will overlap. China, for its part, bases its claim on what it calls the “9-dash map,” the demarcation lines used by both the governments of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The demarcation lines include, among others, the Spratly Islands disputed by the Philippines, China, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam; and the Panatag Shoal in Zambales. Believed to be at stake here are not just fishing resources but also vast mineral resources, including oil. The Chinese date their claim under the “9-dotted line” to as early as 1948.
In the face of conflicting claims and in the light of international law against resort to force, the Philippines obviously cannot enforce by force of arms what it believes to be its right. The Philippines therefore hopes that arbitration will solve the problem. Will it?
Peaceful settlement of disputes is compulsory. Under Part XV of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, states are required to settle peacefully disputes concerning the convention. If a bilateral settlement fails, Article 285 requires submission of the dispute for compulsory settlement to one of the tribunals clothed with jurisdiction. The alternatives are the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Itlos), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), or a voluntary arbitral tribunal constituted under the convention.
Assume, however, that the Philippines wins, how will the decision be enforced? Submission to the ICJ may be declined by a state. But if a state submits to the ICJ, the decision of the ICJ may be enforced by the Security Council. But China has veto power in the Security Council. For its part, Itlos does not contain an enforcement mechanism. Associate Justice Antonio Carpio calls the situation a “legal black hole” and suggests that our only hope is that the bully China will yield to international public opinion.
-
No it won't stop the Chinese from asserting their claim on the Spratleys. What it would do is prevent them from doing anything provocative or hostile like sending warships into the area especially if US warships are close by.
I would classify occupying Ligaw island and firing warning shots at Philippine aircraft and maritime vehicles more provocative and hostile. The presence of US forces in Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base did not prevent the Chinese from committing these hostile acts. The presence of US bases in Japan, likewise, didn't prevent the PROC from sending 8 Chinese ships in the disputed Senkaku islands, an act deemed provocative and hostile.
-
The presence of US military bases in RP soil will not stop the Chinese from asserting their claim on the Spratleys. It didn't stop them from entering the waters of the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands despite the US military presence in Japan. It didn't stop them in 1971 from occupying and establishing its military presence in the Spratleys despite the US bases in Clark and Subic.
Wikileaks: Chinese Occupation of Ligaw Island, 1971
As always, US action, be it military or otherwise, will be to its (USA's) own best interest.
-
people also tend to forget who worked to deregulate the banking industry. things like that don't seem to matter to voters anymore, it just matters that you can croon like al green and blame current woes on un-hip past presidents.
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which repealed the banking restrictions imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law, however, was clearly the handiwork of the Republican dominated House and Senate.
Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001. During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.
The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1), two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).
**Sotto-copied from internet sources
-
btw, wasn't the failure of fannie mae and freddie mack the result of the dodd-frank bill? this goes much further during the carter years with his community reinvestment act. the government forced the banks to lend to poor people to get access for housing. this is the "NINJA" loans. they lent funds to people with no income, no jobs and no assets.
The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack was in September 2008. The Dodd-Frank bill, a financial reform law in response to the recession was signed into law in July 2010. You must have meant the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which allowed commercial banks to engage in the investment business. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (through the major effort of Republican legislators and commercial bank lobbyists) is largely blamed for the recent US financial crisis.
-
^ talking about spin, at least Newsroom doesn't masquerade itself as "real news" unlike that "news channel" FOX News
-
HBO's Newsroom Season 1 Episode 1
This is good television
-
To answer the topic's question:
1986- Ateneo 2, La Salle 0
1987- Ateneo 2, La Salle 0
1988- Ateneo 2, La Salle 1
1989- La Salle 1, Ateneo 1
1990- La Salle 2, Ateneo 0
1991- La Salle 2, Ateneo 0
1992- La Salle 2, Ateneo 0
1993- La Salle 1, Ateneo 1
1994- La Salle 1, Ateneo 1
1995- La Salle 2, Ateneo 0
1996- La Salle 1, Ateneo 1
1997- La Salle 2, Ateneo 0
1998- La Salle 2, Ateneo 0
1999- La Salle 1, Ateneo 1
2000- La Salle 1, Ateneo 1
2001- La Salle 4, Ateneo 1
2002- Ateneo 3, La Salle 2
2003- Ateneo 3, La Salle 1
2004- La Salle 3, Ateneo 1
2005- La Salle 3, Ateneo 0
2007- Ateneo 3, La Salle 2 (2>3: DLSU def. ADMU in Final Four then became champs)
2008- Ateneo 2, La Salle 0 (as of Eliminations round only)
Championships:
La Salle - 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004 & 2007
Ateneo - 1987, 1988 & 2002
Updated stats:
1986 - Ateneo 2, La Salle 0
1987 - Ateneo 2, La Salle 0
1988 - Ateneo 2, La Salle 1
1989 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
1990 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 2
1991 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 2
1992 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 2
1993 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
1994 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
1995 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 2
1996 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
1997 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 2
1998 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 2
1999 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
2000 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
2001 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 4
2002 - Ateneo 3, La Salle 2
2003 - Ateneo 3, La Salle 1*
2004 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 3*
2005 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 3*
2006 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 0
2007 - Ateneo 3, La Salle 2
2008 - Ateneo 4, La Salle 0
2009 - Ateneo 2, La Salle 0
2010 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
2011 - Ateneo 2, La Salle 0
2012 - Ateneo 3, La Salle 0
35- 35
*forfeited games due to La Salle fielding in ineligible players
Official UAAP Records head-to-head stat:
1986 - Ateneo 2, La Salle 0
1987 - Ateneo 2, La Salle 0
1988 - Ateneo 2, La Salle 1
1989 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
1990 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 2
1991 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 2
1992 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 2
1993 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
1994 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
1995 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 2
1996 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
1997 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 2
1998 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 2
1999 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
2000 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
2001 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 4
2002 - Ateneo 3, La Salle 2
2003 - Ateneo 4, La Salle 0*
2004 - Ateneo 4, La Salle 0*
2005 - Ateneo 3, La Salle 0*
2006 - Ateneo 0, La Salle 0
2007 - Ateneo 3, La Salle 2
2008 - Ateneo 4, La Salle 0
2009 - Ateneo 2, La Salle 0
2010 - Ateneo 1, La Salle 1
2011 - Ateneo 2, La Salle 0
2012 - Ateneo 3, La Salle 0
42- 28
La Salle - 1989, 1990, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 & 2007 (Seven Championships)
Ateneo - 1987, 1988, 2002, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 & 2012 (Eight Championships)
-
To answer the topic's question:
1986- Ateneo 2, La Salle 0
1987- Ateneo 2, La Salle 0
1988- Ateneo 2, La Salle 1
1989- La Salle 1, Ateneo 1
1990- La Salle 2, Ateneo 0
1991- La Salle 2, Ateneo 0
1992- La Salle 2, Ateneo 0
1993- La Salle 1, Ateneo 1
1994- La Salle 1, Ateneo 1
1995- La Salle 2, Ateneo 0
1996- La Salle 1, Ateneo 1
1997- La Salle 2, Ateneo 0
1998- La Salle 2, Ateneo 0
1999- La Salle 1, Ateneo 1
2000- La Salle 1, Ateneo 1
2001- La Salle 4, Ateneo 1
2002- Ateneo 3, La Salle 2
2003- Ateneo 3, La Salle 1
2004- La Salle 3, Ateneo 1
2005- La Salle 3, Ateneo 0
2007- Ateneo 3, La Salle 2 (2>3: DLSU def. ADMU in Final Four then became champs)
2008- Ateneo 2, La Salle 0 (as of Eliminations round only)
Championships:
La Salle - 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004 & 2007
Ateneo - 1987, 1988 & 2002
Updated stats:
Ateneo La Salle Ateneo La Salle
1986 2 0 1986 2 0
1987 2 0 1987 2 0
1988 2 1 1988 2 1
1989 1 1 1989 1 1
1990 0 2 1990 0 2
1991 0 2 1991 0 2
1992 0 2 1992 0 2
1993 1 1 1993 1 1
1994 1 1 1994 1 1
1995 0 2 1995 0 2
1996 1 1 1996 1 1
1997 0 2 1997 0 2
1998 0 2 1998 0 2
1999 1 1 1999 1 1
2000 1 1 2000 1 1
2001 1 4 2001 1 4
2002 3 2 2002 3 2
2003 3 1* 2003 4 0
2004 1 3 * 2004 4 0
2005 0 3 * 2005 3 0
2006 0 0 2006 0 0
2007 3 2 2007 3 2
2008 4 0 2008 4 0
2009 2 0 2009 2 0
2010 1 1 2010 1 1
2011 2 0 2011 2 0
2012 3 0 2012 3 0
35 35 42 28
-
the Semerads are back in San Beda
-
whos playing tomorrow? Lasalle vs?
FEU
-
it's starting to look like an Ateneo-La Salle Final Four match-up
The End of the American Century?
in Politics, Economy & Current Events
Posted
Rancher Proudly Breaks the Law Becoming a Hero in the West
The New York Times
By Adam Nagourney
April 23, 2014
BUNKERVILLE, Nev. — Cliven Bundy stood by the Virgin River up the road from the armed checkpoint at the driveway of his ranch, signing autographs and posing for pictures. For 55 minutes, Mr. Bundy held forth to a clutch of supporters about his views on the troubled state of America — the overreaching federal government, the harassment of Western ranchers, the societal upheaval caused by abortion, even musing about whether slavery was so bad.
Most of all, Mr. Bundy, 67, who was wearing a broad-brimmed white cowboy hat against the hot afternoon sun, recounted the success of “we the people” — gesturing to the 50 supporters, some armed with handguns and rifles, standing in a semicircle before him — at chasing away Bureau of Land Management rangers who, acting on a court order, tried to confiscate 500 cattle owned by Mr. Bundy, who has been illegally grazing his herd on public land since 1993.
...
But if the federal government has moved on, Mr. Bundy — a father of 14 and a registered Republican — has not.
He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
...
Mr. Bundy, whose family has grazed cattle here since they homesteaded in the 1870s, owes the government more than $1 million in grazing fees. He stopped paying after the bureau ordered him to restrict the periods when his herd roamed the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area as part of an effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise.
READ FULL STORY