In 1999, McCain supported comprehensive legislation deregulating the financial-services industry, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial and investment banking and was one of the hallmarks of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal economic program. While that allowed banks and securities firms to compete more directly, critics say it led to excesses because it wasn't replaced by a new law reflecting changes in financial markets.

McCain also supported a law that deregulated derivatives trading and exempted energy trading from oversight. And he backed a federal law that preempts state laws, some of which are stringent, against anti-predatory lending.

Will he use the regulations which he worked so hard to eliminate as a model for his plan?

Cause, it seems that they worked till he stripped em away.

He can call it the "forge ahead to undo the damage I already facilitated" policy.

Now there is change you can believe in, my friend.

Or will he declare war on "the shitty policies enacted by the Republicans"

Change and Reform
Reform and Change

McCain always bragged how "I am a deregulator guy" -- too late to go back now, Johnny.

McCain = more of the same.

There's a real shocker and Im sure FOX news is all over this one. But if you're really saavy, if McSame wins, just find out Mr. Pow's main interest on Wall St. and trade ahead of that baby. Tax breaks for big oil, go long, war with Iran, buy Defense stks, new and confused trading derivatives, play those too!! That's how these Rethugs did it the last 8 years. It's the perfect template.

"McCain Enabled Economic Meltdown"

See what happens when you reach across the aisle. Pelosi says "not our fault, it's his. His was the deciding vote"

if you would do as biden said yesterday,step up and be patriotic and pay more taxes we could get out of this mess.

"if you would do as biden said yesterday,step up and be patriotic and pay more taxes we could get out of this mess."

Personally, I have always said that Republicans who vote for war mongers and then support tax cuts for the first time in our history and unpatriotic assholes. It IS patriotic for wealthy people to pay higher taxes when the economy of the nation is on the brink of depression. FDR knew it, the Greatest Generation knew it and didn't even whine about it.
It's time for those who have in 2008 to step up to the plate and bear the responsiblity that goes with wealth.

What a maverick. Keating, anyone?

Personally, I have always said that Republicans who vote for war mongers and then support tax cuts for the first time in our history and unpatriotic assholes.

Danni, I'll bet the reason the US actually won WWII against three enemies in less time than we've spent in Iraq is the shared sacrifice of the American people. Most everyone did their part and certainly didn't expect to do it with tax cuts in time of war.

One of the saddest funniest things I ever heard was Michael Medved calling tax cuts a "moral imperative". Al Rantel, about the same time, said tax increases would be "immoral".

Morality???

First, Iraq was not a war it was a police action of occupation.

Second, tax cuts should have happened, but not to the rich but to those at the bottom of the economic pie.

The rich do nothing to help our economy, particularly when they are the ones off loading our labor.

Wall street should have the highest and most regulation as well as tax burdens but some how people are minipulated into thinking wall street protects America.

Wall street does the exact opposite, wall street in any sense of the word takes down America and has shown to do so every 50 years or so.

The rich do nothing to help our economy...

???

How many of the businesses that employ the bulk of this nation's people are owned by the poor?

I guess if the rich and their corporations suddenly disappeared the economy would suddenly take a turn for the better?

How odd. I'd like to see something that backs up your statement, The rich do nothing to help our economy...

The Palin And McCain Administration: Sarah Flips The Ticket During A Rally (VIDEO)

Oh, Johnnie. We barely knew ya.

McCain is shaking his head and crying.

Oh God, why me?

First I get fucked by Bush and Rove in '00. And now I'm getting fucked by this twit.

Anyone really believe that any regulation brought forth by the Goppers will do little more than pay lip service to the problems deregulation has caused?

How the F does Biden not make sense to anyone!??

THINK!!!

DUMBYA and the RepuliCROOKS have been Saying and forcing 8 years of GIVING ALL THE MONEY and TAX BREAKS to the WEALTHIEST ( trickle down economics still fools idiots ) - THAT is the way to Grow the ECONOMY they vowed

WELL, NO Surprise that being force-raped the BUSH Welfare for the Wealthy program paid from our Pockets has LED exactly to THIS - RECORD BAD DEBT, RECORD BAD ECONOMY, Collapsing 200 Yr Old FINANCIAL Institutions and FINANCIAL RUINS

McLAME is Brash like BUSH to say HE WANTS to KEEP GIVING TAX Breaks mostly to the WEALTHIEST - That is how to GROW the Economy
*Also while continuing to blow $10 Billion a Month for the Welfare for Halliburton/ IRAQ program for the next 100 Years!

McLAME is caught on VIDEO saying " I really don't know much about Economics"

Yet there actually still remain 45% F'ING RepliTARDS who STILL are BENDING OVER and BEGGING for MORE Punishment and Carnage - you SICK F'ing FAT Rushaholics!!!!

GROW a FUCKING Brain Cell already!

McCain is shaking his head and crying.

Oh God, why me?

First I get fucked by Bush and Rove in '00. And now I'm getting fucked by this twit.

Actually, John fucked himself this time around. He's basically turned into a whore for the Religious and Republican Right.

Who manages the financial services regulatory agencies and answers to the President? Barney Frank! Maybe Frank was to busy boarding male prostitutes to pay attention to the Federal Reserve, SEC, US Treasury, Fannie Mae and the other important financial services regulators.

Barney Frank is a text book definition for being gross incompetent and overtly negligent. He heads up the United States House Committee on Financial Services! He is directly responsible for the collapse of the banking industry. But you will never see a hearing with him on the hot seat.

Barney Frank must resign.

Most of America does not know that 2 major Russian stock exchanges have be halted for 3 days to financial instability with their banking system.

This is serious.....Obama would let the UN make the decisions.

McCain can't run from his 'experience' in supporting bills that end up costing the U.S. Treasury hundreds of billions in bailouts.

S & L crisis, now this. You'd have thought all that 'experience' would have taught him that less regulation over the financial sector leads to nothing but trouble.

He didn't learn a damn thing because it didn't hurt him.

This is serious.....Obama would let the UN make the decisions.

#19 | Posted by aclusux at 2008-09-18 09:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e
______________________________
_________

WTF? Can you prove that Obama has said he would let the UN make U.S. decisions??

Of course not you f'ing Republitard LimpBong licker!

However, your Repulicrooks DID actually invite CORPORATIONS to write U.S. Policies - that is FACT and not your Hallucinogenic Rush-induced hillbilly heroin Bushit being brain f'd into your thinking!

Gunner....don't get to hyped up with the Rethugs on this board. They were the first ones to probably spit on any guy with a Turban after 9/11 even if they were a Sikh. They need a refresher course in economics(especially the last 8 years)and are probably the whitest of the white boarding on Aryan beliefs. The confuse their love for this country with rightwing fanaticism and are probably too dum to realize they've been taking it in the "brown eye" from those lovable Repugs (sic) for way too long.

I call bullshit. The Dems (especially the ones on this site) are ignoring:

1. McCain predicted this exact meltdown back in 2006 while supporting the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190. During his speech on it he said:

...to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

2. The above reform act was killed in committee by Chris Dodd (a Democrat) who was ranking member and now Chair of the Banking Committee.

That certainly isn't the kind of change he led us to believe he would bring. Sounds more like part of the corruption problem.

3. Barack Obama was number 2 on the list of people that recieved lobbying money from Fannie and Freddie after only 3 years in the Senate beating out even John Kerry.

4. According to the report that spawned the reform act, a massive lobbying fund was used to help keep regulators off the backs of Fannie and Freddie. Do you REALLY think that Obama got that lobbying money from them for doing nothing?

5. Two of Obama's advisors are Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson... Raines had been a CEO at Fannie Mae and Johnson had been Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and a managing director of.... wait for it.... Lehman Brothers.

Barack Obama's fingerprints are all over this one. You can try and deflect to McCain all you want, but he is one of the few people that saw this coming, warned about it, and tried to fix it 3 years before the shit hit the fan. That is a matter of public record. Show me the public record of what Obama did... other than take money from Fannie and Freddie that is.

Mooman-
McCain was for reckless deregulation for decades before he was (ostensibly) against it. Same could (and will) be said for the Republican Party at large.

BTW, in what way would McCain's out of character and weak posturing have changed the decades long slog of his and other Republicans' successful efforts at gutting regulation imposed after the Great Depression? In what way would his one time and weak gesture have changed this current crisis?

Please be specific. I'm a skeptic.

Sorry, but try and foist this off on McCain as you want... the most direct things responsible were the Democrats push to force the relaxation of lending standards in the 90's, then accepting large amounts of lobbying cash to help Fannie and Freddie avoid regulators (which included Obama), and killing off any and all attempts at reform such as the 2005 bill.

Yes, there were Republican's involved too, but Fannie and Freddie were always favorite projects of the Dems with many "retiring" to them from Congress to walk away later with bundles of cash.

Hell, just Google Countrywide Mortgage and Chris Dodd... conflict of interest? How about all that lobbying cash Obama got? Out of 9 years of lobbying cash, Obama came in the #2 recipient even though he had only been in the Senate for 3 years.

You can whine about McCain and deregulation, but without Congress forcing the industry to relax lending standards (ostensibly so that "poor people could buy houses") when the industry normally wouldn't have done so on it own because of the risk, then fighting off regulators and reform... none of this would have happened since those bad loans wouldn't have been made.

It wasn't a Wall Street problem... it was a lending standard problem.

Yes, I know McCain says otherwise, and that is HIS gaffe. But compare McCain's gaffe to Obama's out-and-out lie about how he saw the problem and tried to fix it (all while getting lobbying money to keep the status quo).

"the most direct things responsible were the Democrats push to force the relaxation of lending standards in the 90's"

Is that the best you've got? Blaming policies long gone, after your party had every chance to change them (and did, in a big way)?

That seems to be the Republican mantra these days: throw out the biggest whopper you can.

Blaming policies long gone, after your party had every chance to change them (and did, in a big way)? '

Sorry, squirm all you want on this one. I already said that there were some Republican's involved as well. However, Fannie and Freddie have ALWAYS been primarily a Dem pet project.

You also can't get out of the fact that what caused can't get out of the fact that what caused the meltdown was a ton of sub-prime "liar loans" to people that under normal (ie. prior to Dem demands) lending standards wouldn't have qualified to have such a loan.

You also can't get out of the fact that Barack Obama has misrepresented... no, worse.... out and out LIED to the American people about his record as a "reformer". Instead of fighting lobbyist, he was heavily on the dole from them, still has major ties to them, and is partly responsible in a HUGE way for the current meltdown. As were quite a few Democrats including Now he is trying to sweep it all under the rug.

As this story starts to gain steam, I think you are going to start to see a big backlash on Obama. So much for "change" from "More of the same Obama". John McCain was one of the only people that actually tried to do anything about this... 3 years in advance.

As you guys are fond of saying.... follow the money trail. Obama is at the end of it in the #2 spot. The top 3 are Democrats.

Moom,

Sorry but the deregulation was a creation of mccain while he was chair on the senate commerce committee.

Hmmmm, I'm sure Obama would blame this on McCain too....all the while being the #2 recipient of all the goodies.

Keep grasping Libs.

Just remember...Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac! Follow the money and find the real truth.

Sorry but the deregulation was a creation of mccain while he was chair on the senate commerce committee.

Uh-huh. That played a small part of the problem... but only once you factor in the liar loans which were the result of Democratic pushes, and the massive amount of lobbying money spent to avoid the regulators that were still in effect. Lobbying money that Obama received a HUGE chunk of.

You can try and push this all off on McCain, but unfortunately you have to ignore that at least he tried to do something about this EXACT thing 3 years ago, Dems (Chris Dodd) killed it in comittee, and that Obama had his are shoulder deep in the money trough from special interests ahead of just about anyone else.

Democratic pushes?

You ignore reality to feel good about your party's destruction of America.

Nice.

You ignore reality to feel good about your party's destruction of America

Brilliant self-retort, Yav.

Who was the number two recipient of lobbying money from Fannie and Freddie? (Hint: the answer is NOT McCain)

Who predicted this crisis 3 years ago and tried to get the problem averted with a regulations reform act? (Hint: not Obama)

Who killed the above act in comittee? (Hint: not a Republican)

Keep squirming. This story is just STARTING to make it out. I think you are going to hear a lot more of it in the days to come.

McCain, but unfortunately you have to ignore that at least he tried to do something about this EXACT thing 3 years ago,

Do you even know what McCain's legislation would have done?

A little more research besides what you find on "opensecrets" might surprise even you.

Yav,

It is useless, I tried to warn him too, but it just went over his head.

I am getting tired of giving them information which they don't bother to read and keep bringing up the same shit over and over again.

Just other posters with new names trying to create more postings.

RCADE should put a stop to it, it makes this site idiotic.

Keep grasping Libs!

BULLSHIT

Obama was number two on the list to recieve lobby money from Fanny and Freddie and number two on the list to recieve lobby money from "lemon" brothers.

Now why do you think he and Chris Dodd (chairman of the banking committee, who was number one on the list) got sooo much money from these failing companys? Well the answer is simple. To keep investigators off thier backs until they could hide it.

Also Barry hired Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson... Raines had been a CEO at Fannie Mae and Johnson had been Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and a managing director of.... you guessed it.... Lehman Brothers. Now it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to put this together. Obama is a typical dirty "Chicago style" politician that learned from the best.

No wonder Barry said McCain's idea of a commission to investigate this problem was a bad idea, because he knows it will point straigt to him. He shoul be in jail not the campaign trail.

I just scratch my head every time I read folks who had unfettered control for most of a decade blame the party out of power.

Will there ever be any responsibility from 'the party of responsibility'?

Gotta give 'ol Barry credit..he sure does look good reading his teleprompter at the Univ. of Miami right now...

OK, so it's all McCain's fault. So he also gets credit for the past two days which are the largest 2 day gain in stock market history. He must have caused that too, right?

Let's not blame the laws that have made it easier for people with no money and no education to borrow up to their ears.

And speaking of "ears", you can't blame Obama for this because he hasn't been around long enough to make any contributions either positive or negative.

Obama is a nobody!

Just to set ol' Freddy on the right (meaning correct) path:

1. Any great one-day Dow bounces followed disastrous Repub-spurred plunges.

2. Laws making it easier for unqualified borrowers were encouraged by Repubs who feel that anything to improve lender profits should be legal. Never restricting greed is a Repub concept.

3. If anyone really needs evidence that Obama is the most qualified candidate to come along since Adlai Stevenson, it's posted on this very thread. Scroll backward, Fredster. herm

"I just scratch my head every time I read folks who had unfettered control for most of a decade blame the party out of power."

Its not a mystery: They are willfully stupid hacks.

"I just scratch my head every time I read folks who had unfettered control for most of a decade blame the party out of power."

Ok... so according to you the Dems are completely to blame for accomplishing virtually nothing since being in power this time around.

What a colossal idiot and embarrassment of a human being you are. Your use of the word "unfettered" is the stinkiest pile of steaming bullshit I have had the misfortune of seeing for a long time. At no time during the Republican majority in either house were they veto-proof (under Clinton) or filibuster-proof (under Clinton and Bush). Your idea that the Dems couldn't do anything to stop anything the Republicans did is such a bald-faced lie that I am truly surprised you weren't too mortified to even type it never mind post it.

"since being in power this time around."

Maybe they would be if the Republicans hadn't set the all time record for obstructionism, or if they hadn't done it in less than half the time.

But lets make a deal: If the Dems have the same type of (slightly) fettered power for 6 years, feel free to blame them for whatever you want: if a law or rule is still in effect after that kind of control, it's because the party in power wants it that way.

But blaming the Dems because of a lack of progress is mere ignorance of Robert's Rules of Order. Give me 41 or more Senators and a President with a veto pen, and you'll get nothing done, either.

"Do you even know what McCain's legislation would have done?"

Why yes, yes I do. Do you? I see nothing from you explaining why it wouldn't have helped.

I did my research, and it was long and boring. It requires a bit of knowledge of legal jargon, and a lot of referencing back to a few prior pieces of legislation. But more on this later.

"BTW, Geoffery Boisi www.freddiemac.com alone, gave $103,300 to McCain's campaign."

Yes, McCain received a few funds. Lets take a look at the totals:

Over an 18.5 year career, McCain recieved (including other Directors/Officers/Lobbyists):

A total of $294,700

Which averages to $15,929.73 a year.

Obama over 3 years in the Senate (not including other Directors/Officers/Lobbyists):

A total of $126,349

Which averages to $42,116.33 a year.

Or $779,152.10 when extrapolated for an 18.5 year career.

Again, to reiterate: I skewed this is Obama's favor by looking deeper at McCain and including more sources whereas for Obama I just went with the raw numbers from OpenSecrets without digging deeper for other sources of contributions. Do you REALLY want to try saying McCain was anywhere close to Obama?

"Maybe they would be if the Republicans hadn't set the all time record for obstructionism, or if they hadn't done it in less than half the time."

Really???? The record???? What was the previous record? Or are you just spewing the talking points out your ass again? That is sure what it smells like.

MOOMANFL

The real deal has nothing to do with campaign contributions.

It's that fact McCain for decades has been a champion of deregulation as we've slowly peeled back nearly every safeguard enacted after 1929 to prevent a repeat of the situation Herbert Hoover and his band of merry 'no regulation' got us in.

The only difference is THIS time the U.S. Government is stepping in with a TRILLION dollars to save the utter collapse of our financial system - and WE get to pay the bill.

"and WE get to pay the bill."

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

$3,333.33 please.

Suckers.

More "wisdom" from John McCain...

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

"as we have done over the last decade in banking"

$3,333.33 please. Come on suckers, pay up.

Hope you enjoyed your $600.00 stimulus.

"The real deal has nothing to do with campaign contributions."

Bullshit. If McCain's and Obama's positions were reversed and McCain had received proportionally as much as Obama has, AND had two advisers straight from the ranks of Fannie and Freddie, AND Obama had sponsored a bill to reform them and it was killed in committee by a Republican that happened to be the TOP receiver of money connected to them....

Well lets just say the Dems would be calling for immediate removals from office and calling it Haliburton Redux.

"It's that fact McCain for decades has been a champion of deregulation"

I call bullshit again. All regulations are not equal (Prohibition anyone). Some are bad regulations, inefficient, or just plain outdated and full of holes.

Your sweeping generalization doesn't address this at all.

Secondly, if he didn't want to regulate at all... then what the hell was he doing in 2005 sponsering a.... wait for it.... REGULATION REFORM?

A reform by the way that would have required stricter reporting of fraudulent loans, required that the regulated entities be verified to have the capital and reserves to cover their risks, eliminated or at least hampered golden parachutes, kept corporate executives from pre-paying their salary, legal defenses, etc. and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

You can see why the execs at Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have like it.

"Well lets just say the Dems would be calling for immediate removals from office and calling it Haliburton Redux"

Worse yet, they would be screaming that it was Haliburton and Enron Redux and holding immediate investigations and trials with every Republican that ever got a dime in the hot seat.

Mooman-
Google "Glass-Steagall Act"

Then Google "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act"

Then type.

"Google "Glass-Steagall Act"

Then Google "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act"

Yes, yes... well aware of them, and of why they weren't the best pieces of legislation.

Now, can you explain how forcing a lending institution to take on risky loans and ignore lending standards that had kept the institutions solvent for hundreds of years didn't have a direct impact on the current meltdown? All of this was basically done at virtual gunpoint under the weight of law passed under the Carter administration and made even riskier under the Clinton administration. The virtual gun in question was the threat to disallow mergers and acquisitions and deny applications for deposit facilities if they don't comply and keep up with quotas irregardless of bad risks of the loans in question.

Of course that little cluster fuck is known as the CRA("Community Reinvestment Act"). Also known as the give poor people that can't afford a mortgage payment for a house a loan anyway even though cause if you don't we are going to strangle your business.

In other words...

If the CRA under Dem administrations was not enacted, we wouldn't have had all these "liar loans" to go bad in the first place. Standard lending practices that had been in place for years would have kept the loans relatively low risk. No melt-down.

What a fine example of how sticking your hand into a business model and forcing them to do things "our way, or else" (aka fucking up the free-market) causes a meltdown in the long run. Good luck on getting a Dem to admit it though. They prize their little social engineering pet projects too much to ever admit they might have had it wrong.

I just love how a few idiot on here attempt to muster a rebuttal by saying "google this" and "google that" while avoiding actually SAYING how:

a) those regulations were necessary considering other legislation in place already

b) The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190 wouldn't have averted the meltdown 3 years ago?

c) How Obama can accuse McCain of an issue with lobbyist after having his arms shoulder deep in the trough?

d) How Chris Dodd isn't asked to step down immediately for a conflict of interest and investigated for corruption after recieving the top amount of money from Fannie and Freddie, having a preferential treatment loan with Countrywide, and having killed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190 in committee which would have averted the current crisis?

e) How Obama isn't just another example of the culture of corruption in Washington considering his ties to Fannie and Freddie?

f) How Obama's claims about trying to avert the crisis months ago while sucking up the cash from Fannie and Freddie makes him a astute prognosticator and reformer, yet McCain is ridiculed for doing nothing despite having realized the problem and trying to correct it 3 years ago in a much more meaningful way.

"Really????"

Yes.

"The record????"

Yes, the all-time record.

"What was the previous record?"

At least one less, during twice the time.

"Or are you just spewing the talking points out your ass again?"

No, you're parading your ignorance again.

Well then, it should be easy for you to prove your claim. No? Thought not. Your head seems to be so far up your ass that I am surprised your talking points could squeeze past on their way out.

It is more likely considering your lack of facts backing up your statement that you are just trying to cover up your own ignorance.

"Well then, it should be easy for you to prove your claim. No? Thought not."

Good God, you're a dumbshit. A cursory search via Google and you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself:

"So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress"

So, yourr quote shows how many there were that year... and you contend that the previous year "held the record" but you offer no proof that it actually held a true record for the most number of filibusters.

Come on... where is your proof. Maybe you are right, maybe not. Either way you are failing to prove your case.

""There's the proof. I guess that means it's your head up your ass. Any statements you'd like to retract?

Speaking of retractions, have you scheduled that recta-cranial pedectomy yet?

"The filibuster has tremendously increased in frequency of use since the 1960s. In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters. One of the filibusters of the 1960s, was when southern Democratic Senators attempted to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours. In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters. The 1999-2002 Senate terms both had 58 filibusters.[12] In the fall of 2007, the 110th Congress' 1st session broke the record, for filibuster cloture votes, topping 70 as of Nov 15, 2007. It is on track to triple the number of such votes in 2008's 2nd session. [13]"

Wow, it is just simply amazing what it took to get you to back up your statement with more than just words. Wikipedia isn't exactly the best reference to use, but better than just saying something is so and expecting it to stand on your word alone.

Now, can you explain to me why filibusters, even in record numbers are supposed to be wrong? After all, at one time Dems held the record and looking at the bigger picture, 70 isn't that much more than 58. Judging by the Dems campaign tactics in the last couple election cycles, filibustering your ass off to block the other party, then blaming them for doing nothing is a valid argument.

Regardless though, if you asked a Democrat back then why they filibuster so much they would have given the same answer I will give you now about the subject:

How could it be wrong to try and stop another party from taking actions that you feel will damage the country?

Going by that rational, you could say the record number of filibusters by the Republicans were just an answer to the record number of harmful actions attempted by the Democrats.

It is all a matter of perspective.

" at one time Dems held the record and looking at the bigger picture, 70 isn't that much more than 58."

Are the goalposts very heavy when you try to move them? The point wasn't how much larger 70 is vs. 58, although even one would make my point, especially since it was done in less than half the time. (BTW, 70 is much larger than 58...over 20% larger.)

"Going by that rational, you could say..."

Going by any rational, you were wrong, and I was right. Again, that would make it your head up your ass...the ass you just got handed to you.

Going by that rational, you could say the record number of filibusters by the Republicans were just an answer to the record number of harmful actions attempted by the Democrats.

Or you could say the republicans didn't listen to their constituents when they filibustered and that is why they are going to lose even more states from the previous two years of not doing the same thing.

Keep up that thinking though, and that simple majority will become a super majority and still you will be scratchin your head wonderin how you got into the mess.

rational = rationale

rational = rationale

Man is not "the rational animal".

Man is a rationalising animal.

Some more than others, admittedly.

A close look at this thread'll tell ya THAT.

Be Well.