Vang

Tai chinh ngan hang
Ngan hang
gia vang
Vang

Since I was an adult them, I remember. If you look at my comment closely, I took no position on the cause(s) of the crisis or link to Clinton – merely on your assertion of constitutional facts about veto-proof votes.

I actually think its unfair to criticize Clinton significantly for that legislation (both parties got involved in that one), or to pin the whole blame for today on the legislation. Similarly though, it was part of the problem, and its unfair to blame Bush entirely or any President for large economic forces that are difficult to predict. Indeed, I'd give them little credit for growth, either. Enron, for example, was largely belly-flop from the over-exuberant 90s (and Greenspan predicted it in outline even in the 90s although he didn't know WHICH companies would be the ones) – the irony is that much of the blame for even obviously 90s bubble bursts transferred to Bush.

And how ridiculous it is to suggest a President doesn't have any other choice “politically” — we hire Presidents to make tough political choices sometimes despite the consequences. You're saying Clinton was a follower – not a leader. I don't know whether he's that simple of a figure – but it is the logical conclusion of your defense.

And you are welcome to comment on my sites as long as you maintain civil discourse. I'm not telling you how to run your site – that is almost entirely at your speech and property rights discretion – I'm just pointing discrepancies in how you advertise your product with what it really is. And I'm hardly here often enough to truly bother you. I'll leave it at that.

Get your history straight.

Would you like us to come and tell you how to run your sites, Zarko?

Since MM admits to “not being an MSM site” and admits to advocacy journalism, it admits to having biases. Since you admit through your attacks on my own (admitted) bias that bias removes the credibility of my writing, you are by a logical application of consistency admitting that MM has no credibility.

So far your ability to read is highly selective.

Since I was an adult them, I remember. If you look at my comment closely, I took no position on the cause(s) of the crisis or link to Clinton – merely on your assertion of constitutional facts about veto-proof votes.

I actually think its unfair to criticize Clinton significantly for that legislation (both parties got involved in that one), or to pin the whole blame for today on the legislation. Similarly though, it was part of the problem, and its unfair to blame Bush entirely or any President for large economic forces that are difficult to predict. Indeed, I'd give them little credit for growth, either. Enron, for example, was largely belly-flop from the over-exuberant 90s (and Greenspan predicted it in outline even in the 90s although he didn't know WHICH companies would be the ones) – the irony is that much of the blame for even obviously 90s bubble bursts transferred to Bush.

And how ridiculous it is to suggest a President doesn't have any other choice “politically” — we hire Presidents to make tough political choices sometimes despite the consequences. You're saying Clinton was a follower – not a leader. I don't know whether he's that simple of a figure – but it is the logical conclusion of your defense.